• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
History Taught In Pakistan

About us

About PakHistory - What is PakHistory.com?

First of all, welcome to Pakhistory.com and thank you for visiting. We've started this project in order to project true historical image of Pakistan, South Asia and the surrounding region with known historical facts, in-depth research and analysis as well as expanding our sources to an international level, where we will support our research with articles from international and regional news papers, magazines, periodicals and renowned authors.

It is also important to understand that our main goal is to inform the general population as well as educate the masses about the history of region which is a place of home for more than 1.3 billion people. Over time regional (rather extremists) governments as well media to some extent have played a large role in distorting history and presenting it in such a way that people have started believing the distorted and untrue version (see links below) of the history from the regional powers and their interests. Some extremists people believe they can change few words in their text books (see links below), change the wordings on online-wikis and all of the sudden history is in their favor. Not so. We believe, history is much more than that � something that needs far more respect than what the bigots and liars show they have for history (and their own for that matter).

Pakhistory.com, though related to South Asia and Pakistan � is an international effort to tell the truth about South Asia, Pakistan and what went on in that region for past 4000 years. We ask every concerned citizen of this world, every Pakistani and non-Pakistani, every Indian and non-Indian to come forward and support us in our journey to explore history of South Asia and present it in its true sense rather than distort it so that our inner being is satisfied.

Pakhistory.com used to be hosted as "geocities sub domain" and now we've purchased this domain and any future updates will happen here. Much of the writings in the Pakistan History section are based on 'Historical Background of Pakistan and its People', is written by Ahmed Abdullah and edited by K. Hasan.

PakHistory.com team does plan on expanding this project into more in-depth study of modern Pakistani history, Pakistan's creation and its aftermath and the era after creation as well as add related content and information regarding South Asia in general. We also plan on adding a discussion forum to the mix or maybe we may link with a growing history forum if such offer is made to us in writing. Please contact us if you would like to be part of this history project and help shape the future and lets defeat the liars.

You are welcomed to send us your suggestions, q

uestions and comments through e-mail. If you would like be part of the Pakhistory.com project, please let us know, we will love to hear from you. Help us reach as many people as possible so that they can see true side of the south Asian history.

Please share on as many message boards / forums as possible send emails to your friends and tell them about Pakhistory.com � people must respect your history so you can be respected in the future. Do something for history.

These are just some of the links and sources that show how extremists and Brahmin extremists of South Asia have tried to distort South Asian history and mislead people of South Asia and the world with wrong and false information. Their lies have been exposed and now it's time for people to find out the truth.




Pakhistory.com Team


Changes in History teaching in Pakistan:

There is increasing evidence that changes in history teaching in Pakistan were being matched with changes inside India after 1971. The western institution and think tanks ; probably are involved in this change in both countries. University of Nebraska had a program to change the curriculum of Afghanistan text books after 1980 to make Russians as enemies during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally AH Nayyar a Pakistani commentator said 'The fact of the matter is that jihad by sword came into not only Pakistani textbooks but Afghan textbooks as well, only because the US wanted it so. He said the task of putting jihad into textbooks in Afghanistan(and prob. Pakistan) was given to a University of Nebraska department in the Cold War years'. He said 'the same University of Nebraska entity has now been instructed by the President Bush's wife to take charge of getting jihad OUT of Pakistani(actually Afghan-corrected) textbooks.' At least one education program the U.S. did sponsor probably did little to break the culture of violence that envelops children here from an early age.

The Agency for International Development paid the University of Nebraska $50 million over eight years, from 1986 to 1994, to produce educational materials for Afghan primary- and secondary-school students. But texts on a range of subjects were highly politicized and often had a militaristic overtone, Tom Gouttierre, director of the university’s Center for Afghan Studies in Omaha, now concede. Some questions prodded students to tackle basic math by counting dead Russians and Kalashnikov rifles. In addition to arming such groups for hitech jihad, the United States became directly involved in their indoctrination process. Between 1986 and 1992, USAID underwrote the printing of explicitly violent Islamist textbooks for elementary school children. The University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO), oversaw this $50 million contract with the Education Center for Afghanistan (ECA), a group jointly appointed by the seven mujahideen organizations that the ISI and CIA had taken under their wing. With this money, the Peshawar-based ECA published a series of first- through sixth-grade textbooks whose recurrent theme was the promotion of Islam through violence.

The education changes in Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1980 may considered as social engineering projects and may be one of largest ever done in history. This social engineering resulted in a steady stream of Islamic jihad militants for the next 25 years that it has changed the world as never before. India has been the biggest targeted country due to the effects of this social engineering.

Taking rather a different tack than Dr.Seuss, these USAID-funded books instructed children that, in the Persian alphabet, Alif is for Allah, Jim is for Jihad, and Shin is for Shakir, adding that “Shakir conducts jihad with the sword. God becomes happy with the defeat of the Russians.” Third- and fifth grade books depicted automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and tanks. A fourth grade mathematics text noted that “the speed of a Kalashnikov bullet is 800 meters per second,” and then asked students, If a Russian is at a distance of 3,200 meters from a mujahid, and that mujahid aims at the Russian’s head, calculate how many seconds it will take for the bullet to strike the Russian in the forehead.

One of the two official views of history also causes problems for the study of History in Pakistan. This view popularized by Dr Ahmad Dani locates Pakistan as part of a Central Asian historical and cultural entity, rather than within India/South Asia. In the first decade after Pakistan's independence, Pakistan considered its history to be part of a larger India's, a common history, a joint history, and in fact Indian textbooks were in use in the syllabus in Pakistan.

However, this changed in the early 1960s when Ayub Khan's government wanted to create a 'History of Pakistan' independent and separate from that of India's. The historians who were given this task attempted to 'take out' Pakistan from Indian history and just look at Pakistan without India. This gave rise to the writing of a Pakistani history disassociated from an Indian past and links were established with Central Asia. All the association with the Indian history has been negated or totally omitted.

It is very clear, that in Pakistan, it is 'Muslim history' that is being taught, and not 'Indian history'. In fact, this Muslim history, as we argue above, is perceived to be a Pakistani history dating from 712 AD. This has major repercussions on what is taught and the way it is taught. For example, since there is a Muslim history and there are courses and subjects called 'The Freedom Movement' which looks at the struggle for an independent Pakistan - the seeds of which according to some historians were sown in 712 AD, but for others in 1857 - seems to overlook the colonial period entirely and treats the Freedom Struggle as a struggle from Hindu domination, not colonial rule.

In none of the curricula studied, did we find a single course on British India, or on colonialism; the period after 1857 is seen as the beginning of the Pakistan Movement and of the Freedom Struggle. From the 'Muslim' period, we move on to the 'Struggle for Pakistan'. In essence, the Freedom Movement is shown to be a movement for the freedom of Muslims in India, but not of India from colonialism. What is interesting, though not at all surprising, is that post-independence modern India, is not taught as part of the history syllabus in Pakistan. For that matter, nor is there a course on the history of modern Pakistan, since both of these countries in this era, are treated under politics.

Interestingly enough, teachers at the University of Karachi's international relations department said that as late as 1989, the term 'South Asia' was "banned" in the department, since it was considered too 'pro-India' and was thought to be a part of an India-centric thinking. South Asia as a subject was introduced only after a democratic government took over in 1988-89 after the death of General Ziaul Haq.

One objective of change in Pakistani text book is to create an benign Islamic political history of the Mogul period in the sub-continent so that there is no antipathy towards the Muslim culture and Muslim people by the non-Muslims in the sub-continent. For the Muslims when a Islamic political history is glorified and is a continuum of the larger pan Islamic history; it energizes the Muslim community and unifies them over any political/ethnic differences. Pakistan after 1971 was rocked by decussating by Baloch and Sindh and unrest. The change in the education was to bring a common Muslim history to bind the provinces. This process was a way for creation of a sub-continent Muslim ruling class accepted by all the people in the sub-continent in the long run.

The assumption here is that non-Muslim population will loose their Hindu attributes and blend with the Muslims in the long run and accept their hegemony. For 30 years in its 55-year history, Pakistan has had governments that were run by the military or put into office and sustained by the military. It is not a matter of surprise that the government-textbook connection has developed into a military-textbook bond. This started in the 1970s when a former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, introduced a full two-year course on the ‘Fundamentals of War’ and ‘Defense of Pakistan’ for Class XI and XII respectively.

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code. Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders. "I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union," said Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force. AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996.

In the ‘Fundamentals of War’ themes like objects and causes, conduct, nature, modern weapons, operations, ethics, war and modern warfare were thoroughly discussed. The ‘Defense of Pakistan’ dealt with Pakistan’s defense problems, economy and defense, foreign policy, military heritage, the role of its armed forces during peace and the qualities of military leadership. There was a military science group for intermediate students, which consisted of war, military history, economics of war, military geography, defense of Pakistan and special military studies as subjects.

General Ayub Khan abolished history from the school system, and got official textbooks prepared for history students at the university level. Between 1960 and 1980 the students read no history at all for the first 12 years of their studies.[ why from 1960 the year Indian movies were banned in Pakistan ] Instead, they were taught a newly invented subject called "Social Studies", which was an uneven and coarse amalgam of bits of civics, geography, religion, economics and history. During the 13th and 14th years (undergraduate period) they read a history book prepared by the government. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's regime did not make any change in this scheme.

General Ziaul Haq promoted the destruction of history with unswerving determination. In the name of a debatable patriotism and a supposititious ideology he made his control over history writing and teaching complete, arbitrary, coercive and totalitarian. He (1) subjected all textbooks of Social Studies to the scrutiny and approval of the Federal Ministry of Education, i.e., a group of civil servants, (2) created a new subject of "Pakistan Studies"; made it compulsory for all undergraduates in arts, sciences, medicine and engineering, and all graduates in law; and got a special textbook prepared for it by several committees and panels of experts working in close collaboration (the result was not even bad history), and (3) dictated that all these books must meet the requirements of an ideology (he did not call it Islam), of which he was the sole definer, judge and perpetrator.

Ahmed Salim and A.H. Nayyar have compiled a 140-page report on ‘The State of Curriculum and Textbooks in Pakistan’. The Report is nothing short of a sneak preview of how our Ministry of Education is preparing five and seventeen year old Pakistanis for ‘jihad’. To be certain, the ‘themes of ‘jihad’ and ‘shahadat’ clearly distinguish the pre- and post-1979 educational contents. There was no mention of these in the pre-Islamisation period curricula and textbooks, while the post-1979 curricula and textbooks openly eulogize ‘jihad’ and ‘shahadat’ and urge students to become ‘mujahids’ and martyrs. The official Curriculum Document, Primary Education, Class K-V specifically prescribes ‘simple stories to urge ‘jihad’.’ Under ‘Activity 4’, the prescription for three and eight-year old Pakistanis is: ‘To make speeches on ‘jihad’ and ‘shahadat’.’

Urdu Curriculum (First Language) for Classes IV and V, National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan sets the following objective: ‘Stories: eight lessons; folk tales, mythical, moral, Islamic, travel, adventure and ‘jihad’.’ Textbook writers are officially directed that ‘a feeling be created among students that they are the members of a Muslim nation. Therefore, in accordance with the Islamic tradition, they have to be truthful, honest, patriotic and life-sacrificing ‘mujahids’.’ A specific ‘suggestion on preparing textbooks’ for Class V is: ‘Simple stories to incite for ‘jihad’.’

Urdu Curriculum (first and second language) for Classes VI-VIII, National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks, Ministry of Education, instructs teachers that students ‘must be made aware of the blessings of ‘jihad’...’ and that teachers must ‘create yearning for ‘jihad’ in their hearts.’

The authors say :

Our curriculum still equates Islam, Pakistan and ‘jihad’. We are still ‘inspiring’ our children to become guerrilla fighters. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan still insists on making her children ‘aware of the blessings of ‘jihad’, to ‘make speeches on ‘jihad’ ‘, to ‘create a yearning for ‘jihad’ ‘, to ‘love and aspire for ‘jihad’.

Stephen Cohen ( Brookings Institution) Quote : By 2001 The Pakistan history and identity was being contested once again. Although Army had been able to impose its vision of the state other ideas exist for what Pakistan should be. The important clash inside Pakistan is not a civilization clash between Muslims and non-Muslims but a clash between different concepts of Islam, particularly how Pakistan should implement its Islamic identity.

Currently there is a movement to eulogize Allama Iqbal the poet during the pre-independence movement as the ideologue of Pakistan to replace Jinnah the Father of the nation. This clearly shows a deep search once again for a reason for the creation of Pakistan by the elite and they have been able to change the debate inside the country to suit their objective. There is a great debate on nationalism and Islamic ummah concept and what does Pakistan stands for.

Pakistan Studies, like most area studies, came into being at a time of crisis. The political and military upheavals of 1971 forced a rethinking of national life, which seems to have led to the conclusion that there was a need to study Pakistani society so as to contribute to our national cohesion.

In 1973, therefore, a university department of Pakistan Studies was established at the Islamabad (later Quaid-e-Azam) University. By 1976 a comprehensive programm for the promotion of the field was chalked out. Several centers were established, and curricula were developed for the secondary level. In 1978 Pakistan Studies was made compulsory up to the bachelor level. Since then knowledge of Pakistan affairs has been examined in tests and interviews for jobs in practically all government departments. The institutional framework for the growth and development of the discipline is furnished by a 1976 act under which was established the National Institute of Pakistan Studies at the Quaid-e-Azam University in 1983.

Pakistan Studies has its cognitive, practical and affective aspects. Cognitively, its main purpose is to promote knowledge of the individual about himself, his country, and the world around him. In its affective aspect, Pakistan Studies is intended to help socialize him to national life and inculcate patriotism and confidence in the future of Pakistan. The field is thus an instrument to create love and loyalty for Pakistan, and thus in the long run produce better policymakers and administrators.

The greatest threat to Pakistan’s future may be its abysmal education system. Pak¬istani schools—and not just madrassahs— are churning out fiery zealots, fueled with a passion for jihad and martyrdom. The obstacles to reform are great. For example, recent street rampages by Islamists forced Musharraf’s former minister of education, Zubaida Jalal, to declare herself a fundamentalist and denounce as unacceptable school text-books that do not include Quranic verses on jihad.

The United States, along with the United Kingdom and the European Union, has recently poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the Pakistani educational system but with minimal effect. US-AID officials in Pakistan have shown little inclination or desire to engage with the government on the issue of eliminating jihad and militarism from school books. Indeed, rather than calling Musharraf ’s government on the continuing espousal of jihadist doctrine, the White House, out of either ignorance or compromise, even praised former Education Minister Jalal for her “reforms.” Jalal’s successor, General Javed Ashraf Qazi, is a former intelligence chief known for his ruthless tactics. It therefore appears that Musharraf’s educational curriculum will go unchanged.

This difficulty, of course, reflects the underlying problems of Pakistan’s govern¬ment. Aware of its thin legitimacy and fearful of taking on powerful religious forces, no reigning government has made a serious attempt at curricular or educa¬tional reform, quietly allowing future minds to be molded by fanatics. But without such critical reforms, the long-¬term prospects for Pakistan are anything but comforting.

The social engineering started during the Zia rule has transformed the next generation of Pakistani. Dr Hoodbhoy says since Zia the Pakistani society had become more “Islamised”. The changes made in textbooks during his regime had taken effect and the young generation was extremely conservative. He said in his physics class there were 13 girls, seven of whom remained burqa-clad, three donned hijabs and only three retained a normal appearance. The change had been profound and it had penetrated to the roots, he added. The military had changed too and its slogan given by Zia and retained today was jihad in the cause of God. This social engineering done on the Pakistani society was initiated and influenced by the western think tanks and universities in a covert manner. The Indian elite and experts failed to comprehend the scope and breadth of the social engineering being done inside Pakistan for more than 30 years leading to a dangerous vacuum in understanding the threat to India and its society. From available information it is the RAND Corporation which has been the lead think tank in the social engineering project for the last 30 years primarily in Pakistan and Muslim world at large.
History of Punjab

The word "Punjab" for the first time was mentioned in the Book ``Tarikh-e-Sher Shah'' (1580) which mentions the construction of Fort by a fellow named ``Sher Khan of Punjab''. Again the name is mentioned in ``Ain-e-Akbari'' part 1 written by Abul Fazal who also mentions that the territory of Punjab was divided into two provinces of Lahore and Multan. Similarly in the second volume of ``Aeen-e-Akbari'' title of a chapter contains the word ``Punjab'' in it. Also the Mughal King Jahangeer mentions the word ``punjab'' on page 183 of his book "Tuzk-i-Janhageeri". [Quraishee 73]

But Archeologists have traced the signs of human habitation to times long before that of Mughals arrival. The upper basin of Indus and the Baluchistan Plateu hosted one of the earliest human civilizations known as the Indus valley civilization. The earliest signs of life human activity date as far back as 7000 B.P. The Indus valley civilization grew from small village and settlements to highly refined urban life. At its height, around 3000 B.C., it boasted the splendid cities of Harrapa (Near present Day Sahiwal in West Punjab) and Moen-jo Doro in the lower Indus valley. The story of the decline, whose reasons are still not completely explained, of civilization is also told through the remains of these cities.

Aryan Migrations

Among other reasons like the change in the wheather patterns, urbanization without any rural agricultural production base one factor is reported to be the series of raids or small scale migrations by the Aryans from the North-West (1500-100 BC). The next thousand year history of Punjab (or Arya-Varta, the land of Aryas, as Aryas called it) is dominated by the Aryans and their interactions with the natives of the Indus basin. Here is where the oldest books of human history called the Rig-Vedas are supposed to have been written. The Aryan tongue Sanskrit became a symbol of the Aryan domination of the area.

Easternmost Satrapy of the Persians

Punjab lied at the outskirts of the great Persian empires and came under their control from time to time. The Persian King Darius the great is reported to have attacked Punjab and occupied some parts. But for the first time the coccupation of Punjab was completed by the Persian King Gustasp in 516 BC. Punjab became the wealthiest Satrapy i.e., the province in the Persian kingdom.

Greeks, the rival empire of the Persians, also had some knowledge of the area. The great Persian Emperor Darius I (521-486 BC) appointed Skylax the Greek to explore the area around Indus river for commercial expeditions who provided an account of his voyage in his book ``Peripulus''. Hectaeus (500 BC) and Herodotus (483-431 BC) also wrote about the ``Indian Satrapy'' of the Persians. Alexander's expeditions were documented in the works of Strabo, Ptolemy, Pliny, Arrian and others. They described a region that had plenty of mighty rivers and was divided into four Kingdoms. In Greek maps we find the mention of the mightiest of river of all the world called the Indos (Indus) and its tributaries of Hydaspes (Jehlum), Akesines (Chenab), Hydroatis (Ravi), Hyphasis (Satluj) and Hesidros (Beas).

Alexanders's Invasion

In 321 BC Alexander the great after breaking the might of the Persians entered their final Satrapy of Punjab. He invited all the cheiftans of this Satrapy to come to him and submit to his authority, which is exactly what the ruler of the northwest most (west of Hydaspes) kingdom of Gandhara with its capital of Taxilai did. But the ruler of the Kingdom beteen (Hydaspes and Akesines) refused to submit to Alexander's authority and the two armies fought the historical battle on the bank of Akesines outside the town of Nikaia (somewhere around modern city of Jehlum).

Porus put up a tough fight but his army was no match for Alexanders army. After losing his sons and getting hurt himself when the defiant Raja was brought in front of Alexander, the legendary conversation took place when Alexander inquired Porus, ``How should I treat you?'', the brave Porus shot back, ``The same way as a king treats another king.''. Alexander was struck by his genius and he not only returned the Kingdom back to Porus, but he also added the area lying between Akesines and Hydraotis to his Kingdom whose ruler had fled.

Alexander as with his other occupied areas established two cities in the area of Punjab, where he settled people from his multi-national armies which included a majority of Greeks and Macedonians. These cities along with the rule of the Indo-Greek thrived long after Alexander's departure.

Alexander's Eastern empire (from Syria to Punjab) was inherited by Selecus Nicator, the founder of Seleucid dynasty. However the Greek empire in the east was disrupted by the ascendency of the Bacterians. The Bacterian King Demetrius I added Punjab to his Kingdom in the second century BC. The best known of the Indo-Greek kings was Menander who established his independent kingdom centered at Taxila in 170 BC. He later moved his capital to Sagala (The modern Sialkot). Menander soon captured territories east of his kingdom and grew to rival the power of Bacterians. Menander died in a vain attempt to conquer Bacteria in 130 BC. Menander's successors maintained the their rule on Punjab till 55 BC when the whole area was disrupted by the events happening in greater Euro-Asia.

In the middle of the second century BC, Yui Chi tribe of modern China began to move westward which caused in turn to Sakas or Scythians to move. Northern Sakas successfully wrestled the power of the areas from the Indo-Greeks. Another Central Asiatic people to make Punjab their home were the white Huns who made continuous campaigns towars this part of the world. Finally establishing their rule in the later 3rd century AD.

Muslim Invasions

Following the birth of Islam in Arabia in 6th century AD, Arabs rose to power and replaced the Persians as the major power in the area. In 711-13 AD Arabs advanced to the land of five rivers, occupying Multan. Further north the area that survived the Arab attcks was divided into small kingdoms.

Meanwhile in Ghazni after the death of Subuktgin, the Turk, his son Mahmud assumed power in 997 AD. He was to expand his father's kingdom far to the west and east of Ghazni through his military conquest. He was to attack Punjab 17 times during his reign. The Ghaznavids were uprooted by the Ghauris who extended their rule as far as Dehli. Shahabuddin Ghauri annexed Lahore to his kingdom in 1186. After Ghauri's death his governor Qutbudin Aibak became an independent ruler of Punjab and founded the Mamluk sultenate. Khiljis' replaced the Mamluks in 1290. The rule of Khiljis was briefly disrupted by the two successful raids by the Mongols who marched their way to dehli twice during Alauddin khilji's rule. tughluqs succeeded Khiljis in 1320 AD. Tughluq rule was replaced by the Sayyids in 1414 AD. Lodhis gained control of Dehli in 1479 AD.

Related Historical Information:

Leading Tribes of Punjab and Their Origin
Before the advent of Islam, but after the Aryan migrations, several invasions and mass migrations of the Central Asian tribes named as the Sakas, Parthians, Kushans, Huns and Gujjars took place in the Punjab (and other parts of Pakistan).


Feb. 12, 2006 Des Pardes

`Islamic Republic of India´ By Aftab Alam

All the narcissism the Bharat has been bragging thereon has mostly been Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely, Allah Rakha Khan to the architect of her missile program, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated Poets, Writers, Historians, Geographers, Architectures, sport stars, film Stars, Musicians, Singers have been Muslim. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been brought about by Indian Muslims. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their own country - they have swindled us of our name "India" - which had been ours exclusively.

Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been 'Pakistanis' and Hindus on either side of the border have never been 'Indians' - We have been 'Indian Muslims' throughout and they have been 'Bharati Hindus' throughout.
Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule - and 'Bharati Hindus' have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule.

During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as 'Hindustan' or 'Hind' as a nickname, in the local languages and 'India' in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language - and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been 'India' - and 'India' has never ever been 'Bharat' before the partition.

The name 'India' therefore has nothing to do with 'Bharat,' 'Hinduism' or 'Hindus.' Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly - and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. 'Bharati Hindus' always keep their real face, trick and task cloaked, for their 'realities' look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, 'India' - and have sent their real name, 'Bharat' in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name 'Bharat' nor they can escape there from so openly - hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they resorted to display the stolen name 'India' on the forefront and kept their real name 'Bharat' dormant, hidden and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout - even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ - while a well known Rajah namely, Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bherath), according to "Puranas" had united some seven regions (or continents) in the north of the now Bharat and was reigning thereupon with great pomp and show. The name of that very regions (or continents), much less than the now Bharat (being somewhat peninsular) was 'Jambu Dvipa' - and hence after the death of the aforementioned Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bharat), the Hindus used to call the land as 'Bharth Varsh' or Bharatavarsha (i.e. land of the Bharata). In this way the present name of 'Bharat' is the corruption of 'Bharata' (or Bherath).

I quote the exact words of the famous researcher, Sri Swami Sivananda from his book 'All about Hinduism' as below:

"The classical name for India which is used in Sanskrit literature is Bharata -Varsha or Bharata-Khanda, after the name of Bharata who ruled over a large extent of territory in days of yore. Manus name for the whole central region between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains is Aryavarta, Abode of the Aryans. Another name for the whole of India is Jambu-Dvipa. The Greeks gave the name Indu to the whole of this country. It was on account of this India became popular as the name of this country throughout Europe".

Renowned Professor C.R. Mishra notes in his valuable research work; 'Comprehensive History and Culture of Orissa' that Bharata did not originally denote India: "Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the regions of northern India " (P: 121). Elaborating this, he states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the name denoted North India at that time." (C.R. Mishra, `Kharavela and His Times', P: 130, N:

And it is for this reason that their ultra religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as 'Bharatya Janata Party' (BJP) - the name of one of their religious book is also "Mahabharata" a long poem narrating the long fight between Kurus and Pandus, the two clans of Bharata family. And Hindus have also been calling their country as 'Bharat Mata' ( i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as "Bharateena".

The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years - if the name 'India' had any link with 'Hinduism' or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have consigned it to the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name 'India' - as they have grabbed Junagadh, Hyderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir.
How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, 'Freedom at Midnight' of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique


Now let us trace the base of the name 'India'. There is no denying the fact that the Greek word 'Indos' and the Latin word 'Indus' have been the ancient names of the mighty River, 'Sindh' (i.e. Indus) respectively - and the 'Sindhus' as well as India have been derived from the words 'Sindh' and 'Indus' respectively. One of the world's most ancient civilizations has been the 'Indus Valley Civilization' which came out more than 3230 BC - flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley - and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryan settlers - it was buried also in its nativity.
Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, 'Sindh, (i.e. Indus) - whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as 'Indos' and 'Indus' - and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as "Indus Valley Civilization" - though it had the most 'contemporary' features.

Its main 'Mausoleums,' the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan; 'Moenjo-Daro' on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larkana District - 'Chanhu Daro' in Nawabshah District, (in Sindh
Province) - 'Harappa' on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province) – 'Shahi Tump' in the valley of Kej (Mekran) in the Baloch territory and 'Judeiro Daro' in the Pathan region of Balochistan.

Now let us go back a little more in time. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years - those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; 'Sindh/Indus'
namely, 'Sindh Valley' or 'Indus Valley' - which were then known as 'Saptasindhva' or 'Sapta Sindhus' meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e.
Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chenab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati).

Celebrated writer, Bode Roy Punjabi quoting the illustrious researcher, Dr.
Abinas Chandra Das writes as under, "The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name."

Bode Roy Punjabi writes in his book, 'Saptasindhva' as under:
"Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the NWFP, Eastern Balochistan and Sind (h) was the area of Aryan Settlement".

Distinguished scholar, A.L. Bhasham writes in his famous Book, 'The Wonder that was India' - "Of the two river systems that of the Indus, now mainly in Pakistan, had the earliest civilization and gave its name to India. The fertile plains of the Punjab watered by the five great tributaries of the Indus had a high culture over two thousand years before Christ, which spread down the lower course of the Indus as far as the sea."

Similar is the account of the eminent research scholar, Sri Swami Sivananda in his research work, 'Origin and Significance of the term Hindu' in the following words:

"That part of the great Aryan race which migrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu, now called the Indus, on the other side of the river. The Persians pronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu, and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. Hindu is only a corrupt form of Sindhu".

So merely as a common noun from the word "Sapta Sindhus" and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan settlers as
whole: they were first called as 'Sindhus' and 'Sindhi' in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word 'Indus' they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was neither Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted.

Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. Sindh Province) and its natives as 'Sindhi' because of the river 'Sindh/Indus' - exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabis, as a common noun.

Now how the erstwhile common noun 'Sindhus' transmuted subsequently into the
'Hindus'- the proper noun - that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun 'Sindhus' from the word 'Sindh', corrupted into 'Hindus,' the complicated noun - which turned into as a certain creed specific.

In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, 'Hinduism'. Because the emerge of the word 'Hindu' was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, 'Hinduism'. And as a matter of fact the word 'Hinduism' have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the 'caste-rule' (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word 'Hindu' had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done.

The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of 'Sindhu' - a native of 'Sindh - Valley' (i.e. Indus - Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word 'Sapta Sindhus' as 'Haft Hindus', for in Persian language the word 'haft' also denotes seven - and as such the word 'Haft-Hindus' is the Persian corruption of 'Sapta Sindhus' the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word 'Hindu' is admittedly the corruption of 'Sindhu' - then the word 'Hindi' is obviously the corruption of Sindhi.

And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as 'Hindi' - whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus - exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of 'Hindu' and 'Hindi'/'Indian'
are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words 'Hindu' or 'Hindukki' are used simply for the believer of Hinduism
- and its plural has been 'Hindoos' or 'Hanadic' - whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as 'Hanud' - from the former plural.

Now let us go a little deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryan Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a 'sculpture based culture' and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the 'sculpture based culture' into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway - and the newly debuted 'sculpture based creed' thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism - they used to use the word 'Vern Ashram' (i.e. caste
rule) and subsequently 'Sanatan Dharma' (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness - that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism.

Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the 'Aryans'
and the 'Sindhus' or 'Hindus' lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture.

Those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, were called the 'Hindus' specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the 'Sindhi'/'Hindi' in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the 'Indians' in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the 'Hindus' word is the corrupted form of Sindhus - similarly the 'Hindus people' are the corrupted (viz converted) form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as 'Barsagheer-Hind' in the eastern languages and as 'Indian subcontinent' in the western languages - and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively - irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India - and had nothing to do with any religion - whereas to denote believers of the 'caste rule' or 'Vern Ashram' the specific word 'Hindus'
was/are used for them, in all the languages of the world.

Exactly as the word "Asians" implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin - hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their credos developed with the passage of time - then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific.

Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion - secondly, unlike all other man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed to their creed. Conversely, the grand spiritual leaders; Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao zi (Lao Tzu) , Nataputta Mahavira, Joseph Smith, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively.

Actually in the start the creed 'Vern Ashram' was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians - which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed.

A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, "The Continent of Circe":

"I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to 'Christian' or 'Muslim'. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase 'Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label 'Hinduism' because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism".

Another renowned Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, 'Wakes up Hindus':

"The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu. The Punjab in Vedic times was called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders."

To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a 'Muslim River' (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e.
the Pakistan) - and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean - the Ocean which itself is not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but has also been contributed with an identity and name (i.e. the Indian Ocean) by this splendid and refined river.

The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly - and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance,

Indian Ocean: the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been swimming therein, since the time immemorial.

Indonesia; a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean.

Indochina; the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. - once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese.

West Indies; the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etcetera - which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean - given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.

Red Indians; the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians has been given officially, the name and status of 'Indiana State' as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world's best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; 'ENCARTA.' :-

"The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch". Furthermore, "Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidents—William Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincoln—lived in Indiana for substantial periods.
Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The state's name, which refers to Native Americans ("Indians"), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the "Hoosier State". Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond".
I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataeus
(550-476) of Miletus, an ancient Greek city of Ionia, on the west coast of Asia Minor (part of modern Turkey) - and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as "father of history" - in the following borrowed words:

'India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the "Deserta Incognita" unknown desert or "Marusthali" (i.e. place of death).

It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat.
When it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus - now even in the NWFP & northern regions of Pakistan, the name of this river has been 'Aba Sin (viz Aba Sindh) - meaning, father of rivers - then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it - and we alone have the right to snatch it back - and rename our country as 'Islamic Republic Of India' (viz Islami Jamhoria Hind)- or 'Muslim India' to be more appropriate.

The reasons for this urge and drive are very compelling and pressing, for

1.The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion or I call it the religion nationality) and the body (i.e. the region - or I call it the regional nationality or identity or the nativity) - as these have been inevitable for a living being. The soul can't stay without corporeal body and a corporeal body can't move without soul - both have been concomitant inter se inexorably. The nationality shall be not robust if it lacks either the soul (i.e. the religion or religion nationality) or body (i.e. the region - or the regional nationality or identity). Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time - but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced.
This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith - and they all became Muslims - but so far their nativities or regional identities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact - hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth.
So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) - (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) - (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) - (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) - and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mu'mineen (RA), namely, Omul Mu'mineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammad's son, has been 'Maria Qibthiya' (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) - and Malka of Saba, (also as Sheba) AS (i.e. Sabaean Queen, AS) has been 'Malka Saba,' AS (Queen of Saba) - even after they all embraced Islam. As such the 'Muslim Millat' or Muslim Ummah ( i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so much and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the 'Muslim Grand Nation' – 'Muslim Millat' or 'Muslim Ummah' (viz the universal Muslim Nation) - then the whole world is their 'Grand Nativity'. Because Islam, Qur'an, and the last Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has not been a race, color, ethnic, region or nation specific but has been universal from the day one - and therefore second ingredient of nationality i.e. nativity for the Muslim Grand Nation shall also be universal, namely the entire world.

Faith specific name, Muslim is common noun; inasmuch region specific name (viz geographic specific name) is proper noun for a Muslim. This is one of the edges the Muslim Nation has got over other nations, for there is no conception of 'Millat' or 'Ummah' in 'them' - because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities is the same i.e. Islam - whereas in 'them' both the nuclei as well as the peripheries are different.


By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject - what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Qura'n there from is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind:

A- Humanity; humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their ascendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity - and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-à-vis other beings.

B- Loyalty to a faith; now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick - and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the "Muslims" - whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews - the believers of Christianity are called Nasara or Nazareth or Christians - and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods.

C- Identity or Nativity; But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities - so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither been made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes.
Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world, for the foremost purpose of the aforementioned Holy Revelation has been stated as "THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER". To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a 'religion' could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality - and nor alone the 'regional identity' or nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) has been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities - as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities.

Now the next part of my question is what is our nationality?

1. In our case too of course Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the 'Indian' nativity or 'regional identity' has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution - it is always granted - and we have been bestowed upon, the 'Indian' nativity or Indian identity - the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been 'Indian Muslims' - as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity/identity, they have had long before embracing Islam - why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours?
Whereas in fact our nativity has been ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy 'Indian Muslims' at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before - but a little after 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims - altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for around one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously.

2. Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e.
the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the identity/nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth.

3. The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not - or survive hardly.
4.We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim Indian Empire and before the freedom - but yet we were a formidable nation, as 'Indian Muslims' and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland - we left behind our 'religion nationality' as well as 'regional identity' and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity - and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality.

5. By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the 'Bharati Hindus' as 'Indian Hindus' and the left over Muslims i.e. the 'Indian Muslims' as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other.

6. As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history - but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy.

7.The word, Pakistan had never ever been a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country.</b>

8.The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world.

9.All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed - and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality has been contrived, retrieved and erected instead.

10.The word 'Pakistan' has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly - very important leaders even pronounce the 'Pakistanis' as the "Pakis" internationally, which is a nude slang.

11.The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old roguish habits, have been mispronouncing it in a more offending way as "phukis" and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang "pakis" as nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the 'higher-ranking' slangy twins.
Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word "Ra'ina" (i.e.
Listen to us) - while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW), used to mispronounce the same as "Ra'aina" which was a slang - hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; "o ye who believe, say not (unto the prophet): "listen to us" (ra'ina) but say look upon us"
(viz unzurna). (Surah Al-Baqarah 2-104). Thus one can gauge how much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words?

12.The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition - but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their dilemma within no time on one hand and created a hitch for us on the other.

13.No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement - like a big Choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in 'pind'
(village) - they call them, 'kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as 'nathu'
or 'khairi'.

14.China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity.

15.Others introduce themselves by disclosing their nationality whereas we confuse others by disclosing ours (viz Pakistanis).

16.Many in us skip even today by saying that nothing lies there in the name
- and that a flower be a flower and a filth be a filth regardless of name - but it lacks any temptation for sanity to be subscribed thereto, for they do forget that it is always a certain name that sprouts the sense of the essence in the first instance - and this is why that name of a certain flower spring forth its pleasant fragrance in the first instance. A goodwill name does not come by overnight - it takes centuries and years that a goodwill name is established and recognized. And here I raise a simple question; can the names of flower and filth can be bartered inter-se?

17.The oneness of Allah Almighty is beyond doubt - but similarly His 99 names, He has preferred for Himself are also beyond question - this is enough to unfold the importance of name.

18.The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW) had always preferred to hide even his severe miseries but He (SAW) could not do so while He (SAW) was embarking upon the Hijrah (viz emigration) in 622 AD from 'Mecca the Magnificent' to 'Medina the Luminous'. His aching words even today can cause drooping. While leaving for 'Medina the Luminous' He (SAW) remarked in the throbbing words:
"O Mecca, I swear by Allah that you are the loveliest to me in the whole world and similar are you before Allah as well - had your natives not compelled me I would have not left you ever"

19.Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never ties the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey.

20.Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e.
warmth and excitement) needs constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader - who does not come into being so frequently but rather very very rarely - whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire.

21.Religion always needs nice and virtuous people to keep them blended together - but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home.

22.Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer - so how a nation could stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri
Lanka) - the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of 'nativity' we left behind.

23.It was the region and not the religion who outfitted the poor Vietnamese to fight for 10 long years against the ruthless US Empire and put down their 30 million human heads, 15 % of its total population in the ordeal of Vietnam War.

24.Two nations at variance in religion can live with peace, provided none of them breaches the region of the other e.g. Egypt & Israel, Pakistan & China
- Iran & Bharat - Bangladesh & Bharat - but they can't live in peace if any one of them breaches the region of the other, despite the similarity in their religions - e.g. Turkey & Kurds - Iran & Kurds – Iraq & Kurds.

25.Religion has been but not always a strong source of convergence - some time it become the source of divergence, when it falls in the hands of illiterate fanatics, hence a nation must be always kept tied with the second rope viz nativity too, for none can leak out there from.

26.Muslims clerics have been successful to split up the Muslims nationhood even within a country by sowing the seeds of petty religious discrepancies amongst them - but has not been successful thus far to split up the nativity. For instance: Iranians Muslims have been bisected insofar as their religion (given the myth of Sunni & Shiite sects) is concerned - but none, including the vocal clerics have thus far been successful to move them a little from their nativity - the regional identity viz Iran. Thus they may be divergent in terms of outfits but convergent in terms of nativity. The same dismal is the case of nearly every Muslim state.

27.To re-catch, reclaim the image and maintain the lineage with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context.

Now the mind haunting question, I know is; how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity?

The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few:

They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great.

Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as 'Bhartavarsha' right from the demise of their Rajah Bharata, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief.

In their constitution their official name has been Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution.

The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the syntax of an international language.

If they like antiquity then they should replace their country name by the oldest one viz 'Jambu Dvipa'.

The name "Hindustan" is purely a Persian word and the name "India" is purely its English version - and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least - the suffix "stan" has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule.

The same is the case of so many Provinces in Muslim countries: Balochistan, Waziristan, Tabristan Gharjistan, Khozistan, Arministan, Nooristan, Sajistan etc. Whereas both, the original name "Bharata" and its corruption the now "Bharat" have had its origin from Sanskrit.

They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus - rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard there from.

Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been 'Brahmaputra' (son of Brahma in Sanskrit) - (or Yarlung Zangbo) & her son rivers, the Ganges and Yamunas; hence they should borrow a name there from, if they like their own rivers.

Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity - and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, 'Nepalese' - which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India. *(The End)*

1-'Tafheem-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
2- 'Tadabur-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi
3- Tarjumamul-Qur'an by Maulana Azad
4- 'Massla Qoumiyat' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
5- 'Kharavela and His Times' by C.R. Mishra 6-'Freedom at Midnight' by co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre
7- 'Saptasindhva' by Bode Roy Punjabi
8-'The Wonder that was India' by A.L. Bhasham 9-'The Continent of Circe' by Nirad C. Choudhry
10- 'Wakes up Hindus' by Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul 11-'Indian Muslims - A political History' by Ram Gopal 12-'Evolution of NWFP' by Rai Bahadur DIWAN CHAND OBHRAI 13-'Dimension of Pakistan Movement' by Professor Mohammad Munawar 14-'The Emergence of Pakistan' by Choudhry Mohammad Ali 15-'India wins Freedom' by Maulana Azad
16- 'The Indian Musalmans' by W. W. Hunter 17-'Pathway to Pakistan' by Choudhry Qaliquzzaman 18-'The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent' by Ishtiaq Qureshi
19- 'The Great Dived' by HV Hodson
20- 'Ancient India' by RC Dutt
21- 'The Meaning of Pakistan' by Sheikh Mohammad Ashraf
22- 'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah -The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
23- 'Hindu – Muslim Question' by Beni Prasad
24- 'The Muslim of British India' by P. Hardy
25- 'The Indus Saga' by Aitzaz Ahsan
26- 'The sacred writings of the world great religions' selected & edited by S. E. Frost, Jr., B.D, Ph.D.
27- 'Naqoosh-e-Iqbal' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadvi 28-'A study of History' by Arnold J. Toynbee 29-'The Oxford History of India' by V A Smith 30-'History of the Ancient World' by Dr.F Korovkin
31- 'Early India & Pakistan to Ashoka' by Sir Mortimor Wheeler 32-'Ancient Pakistan' by Professor Ahmad Hassan Dani
33- 'Tarikh -e- Pak -wa- Hind', published by Talimi Adara Urdu Bazaar Lahore
34- 'Muhsan-e-Insaniyat' by Naeem Sadiqee 35-'Sirat Sarwar-e-Aalam' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi 36-'The Muslim Dilemma in India' by, M.R.A. Baig 37-'The Hindu-Muslim Question' by Professor Beni Prasad
38- 'Muslim Separation in India' by Dr. Abdul Hamid 39-'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah: The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
40- 'The meaning of Pakistan' by F.K Khan Durrani 41-'Last Years of British India' by Michael Edward 42-'The Menace of Hindu Imperialism' by Swamy Dharma Theerathaji Mahraj 43-'Know the Hindus, Jews of the Subcontinent' by Mian Amin-ud-Di44Hindustan on the Cross Roads by Professor Balraj Madhok 44-'Caste & Outcaste' by J E Sanjana
45- 'The Muslims of British India' by P. Hardy
46- 'Quaid-i-Azam As I knew Him' by M.A.H. Ispahani 47-'History of the Freedom Movement in India' by Dr. Tara Chand
48- 'Inside Congress' by Swami Shardhananda 49-'Loin Cloth-Laid Bare' by P.K. Dutt 50-'Mother India' by Katherine Mayo
51- 'My Country and My Rulers' by V.K Kulkarni 52-'The Sikh Demand Their Homeland' by Sadhu Swarup Singh 53-'A Warning to the Hindus' by Savitri Devi
54- 'Historical Role of Islam' by M.N. Roy 55-'Hindustan on the Cross Roads' by Professor Balraj Madhok.
56- 'Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan' by S M Ikram.
57-'India, a wounded Civilization' by V S Naipaul.
58-'Nationalities in India Politics' by M S Variranpillai.
59-'India – a Restatement' by Sir Coupland Reginald.
60- 'The Story of Civilization' by Will Durant.
61-'Verdict on India' by Beverly Nichols.
*The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily
reflect those of despardes.com* *Have Your Say
><despardes@optonline.net?subject=`Islamic Republic of India´>
* *Gajendra Singh, India*

Interesting and amusing piece. He (the author) is a good student. *Gary Rice, USA* India is a nation of people long before Moslems invaded. This is so funny because in 1947 the same people that allowed for the Modern Israel, one year later created Pakistan by carving out half of India for the Moslems. *Chappy Happy, India* Bharat is strong and will be strong all the time, you Pakistanis should know by now, how many times you have lost war with us. According to you, Muslims are top brand, they created historical sites, you forgot to add the barbaric acts Muslims commit all the time, Taj Mahal is one example. *William F. & Alice K. Mathews, USA* No comment on the text or politics of the article; just a strong sense that the point about "stan" being a term for Muslim lands is incorrect. It is my understanding that "stan" is old Persian for "Land of", and has no Muslim context; for instance Turks still call Greece "Yunanistan", and Greece is certainly not Muslim.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rewriting history - Murdering history amounts to state-sponsored terrorism
Mohammad Shehzad

Social studies textbooks in the Urdu language, printed by the government and used in government-run schools and institutions, fudge facts and indoctrinate students with a jaundiced worldview. The most comprehensive analyses of this phenomenon in Pakistan is historian Prof KK Aziz?s ?The Murder of History,? published by Vanguard Books Pvt Ltd. Social Studies for Students used in classes four through ten comes in seven versions. The subject is compulsory study for students in all state-sponsored schools and the textbook is the only book available to these schools. This later dovetails into Pakistan Studies, where even private schools are forced to teach a couple of texts that have been written at the behest of the state and project a certain idea of Pakistan, its supposed friends and adversaries. <b>The books, which do not name the authors, are literary equivalent of hate speech. These books would not be out of place in any madrassah preparing the young for an early grave. ?Hindu? India and Britain are depicted as enemies while Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Ummah are extolled. The Pakistan Army and its ?three decisive victories? over India are mentioned liberally</b> and are an example of how institutional attempt has been made to rewrite history.

<b>Words like ?dark?, ?ugly? and ?short? are used to describe Hindus while Muslims are presented in glowing terms. Atrocities committed by Muslim invaders are glossed over while those by Hindu and Sikh invaders magnified. Invasions led by Muslims are justified as having been necessary for the expansion of Islam whereas Hindu-led invasions are depicted bleakly. Hindus are also reported as having colluded with the English to suppress the Muslims, according to these books. ?The English confiscated Muslim lands and gave them to the Hindus. Muslim welfare institutions also met a similar fate. The money generated through Muslim trusts was misappropriated by the English and this resulted in the closure of several Islamic madrassahs. The English also looted the cultural assets of the Muslims. Valuable and rare books of Muslims were transported to Britain and thus, as per plan, the Muslim educational system was ruined.? Replacement of Persian with English as the official language is also cited as an example of the Hindu-English campaign against Muslims. ?The English also replaced the Islamic law with Common Law. This made the Muslims on the judiciary redundant. And they were replaced by Hindus,? read the books. ?Gandhi was with the Muslims and against the English when the Caliphate Movement started but without giving any reason switched sides. This is typical of Hindus.? The ?obduracy? and ?subversiveness? of the Congress Party are posited as factors that led to the creation of Pakistan. The party is also accused of masterminding acts of violence and aggression against Muslims and plotting to install ?Hindu Raj? upon the end of British rule.</b>

The Nehru Report is mentioned as an example of the Congress Party?s anti-Muslim stand. ?Congress and its Hindu leaders wanted to have a constitution that could help them prevail upon the Muslims. They were not willing to recognise the independent political standing of the Muslims. Neither were they inclined to protect Muslims? constitutional rights.? In 1937, Congress won six states. This period is described as one of untold misery for Muslims. ?The national anthem, ?Banday Matram?, is un-Islamic and preached hatred against Muslims. Recitation of it was made compulsory in schools; children were made to worship Gandhi?s portrait and salute the Congress flag... <b>This was a bald attempt to undermine and forcibly replace Muslim traditions and culture. Muslims were embargoed from government services and disallowed from freely practicing Islam.? The government resigned two years later and this, on Jinnah?s instruction, was celebrated as the ?day of deliverance?. Needless to say Muslim League leaders are portrayed as possessing the patience of saints and the party is extolled for its role in the creation of Pakistan. ?The Hindus were biding their time and wanted, once the British left, to rule over Muslims to take revenge for the time they spent under benevolent Mughal rule.?</b>

At the time of Partition, Congress leaders prevailed upon Viceroy Mountbatten and coerced Radcliffe into annexing several Muslims-majority districts to India that would have been part of Pakistan under the rules agreed upon, says the book. Pakistan was thus deprived of control over river waters from Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. ?India subjugated the people of Kashmir against their will,? they say, ?There were around 450 semi-sovereign states in the subcontinent that could have either joined India or Pakistan. Kashmir and Hyderabad-Deccan decided to remain sovereign. Kashmir?s Hindu Dogra dynasty prince struck a deal with Nehru and announced accession to India despite the wishes of the Kashmiri people.? When Junagadh announced accession to Pakistan, India sent its troops there to foil the accession. ?According to an agreement, Pakistan had to receive a lot of cash and ammunition from India which the latter blocked without justification,? the books say. However, no mention is made of the fact that Gandhi declared a fast-unto-death to force the India government to release funds that were Pakistan?s due. ?Muslims have always helped the Hindus who have only returned the favour by massacring innocent Muslims,? the textbook for Class IV makes plain on Page 85. ?India is an enemy. Its designs are nefarious. We should receive military training so that we could fight our enemy,? it suggests on Page 112. The propagation of the caste-system and of medieval practices such as satti (burning a widow on the husband?s pyre) are used to illustrate <b>the inferiority of Hindu culture.</b>

India is condemned for ?silently? attacking Pakistan on September 6, 1965. There is no mention of Operation Gibraltar under which Pakistan Army personnel in plainclothes went into Kashmir to support ?locals? against India. Accounts of all Indo-Pakistan wars are similarly skewed with the upshot always in Pakistan?s favour. Fifth grade students, for example, are taught that the 1971 war was a Hindu conspiracy. In September 1981, Pakistan offered India a no-war pact but India evaded the issue and started raising unnecessary objections over Pakistan?s foreign policy, the books say. ?Indo-Pak relations improved in 1990,? near the time of a near nuclear standoff incidentally, ?but suspicions remained as India was not sincere in fairly settling the Kashmir issue.? The UN is taken to task for its ineffectualness in resolving the Kashmir dispute. India is accused of settling Hindus in Kashmir so that if there finally is a plebiscite, as mandated by the UN resolutions, this new Hindu majority can vote for accession to India. Muslim countries are thanked for their support to Pakistan over Kashmir and General Pervez Musharraf is lionised for broaching the subject at the Agra Summit last year. ?President of Pakistan presented the Kashmir case courageously and splendidly which was appreciated by the entire world but the summit failed.? One remarkable thing about these textbooks is the addition every ruler does to them. Sometimes, previous rulers are either criticised or just ignored. For instance, during General Zia-ul Haq?s period, all references to prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were removed. Citing the signing of the 1973 constitution, for instance, the textbook dealt with the issue in one small paragraph without a single reference to Bhutto.

India is blamed for imposing three wars on Pakistan, for starting an arms race in the region, and for the wholesale slaughter of Kashmiris. But the books do sound off on a bit of hope. ?Pakistan is a peaceful nation and wants pleasant ties with India. In the days to come, Pakistan-India relations will improve.? <b>This may seem to contradict definitions of jihad in the books describing it as a religious duty to war against India. </b>(Rich tribute has been paid to Shah Mohammad Ismail and Maulana Abdul Hayee for waging jihad against the English in the Frontier province.) <b>Pakistan?s ills are blamed squarely on India and no mention is made of draconian laws like the Hudood Ordinance and commonplace crimes against women and children and minorities that make life in Pakistan miserable</b>. Afghanistan and its refusal since 1947 to accept the Durand Line as the international border are also mentioned. The country is accused of coming up with the irredentist cry for Pashtunistan. The books say diplomatic relations were severed twice, in 1955 and 1961. ?Despite this animosity, Pakistan extended Afghanistan trade facilities... During the Afghan war, Pakistan gave refuge to three million displaced Afghans.? The books also exalt the Taliban as Mujahideen or holy warriors.

Absent, however, is the August 11, 1947, speech of the Quaid-e-Azam in which he presented his vision for a secular, democratic Pakistan. At the end of the books a list of martyrs who received the military honour Nishan-e-Haider has been published. There is also no mention of social workers and philanthropists. Abdul Sattar Edhi and Ansar Burney are conspicuously absent from the pages of these books. ?The absolutist worldview these books champion,? says one educationalist, ?promotes a dangerous environment rife with hatred and suspicion of the other. Forcing students to read such stuff amounts to state-sponsored terrorism. These poisoned texts need to be reviewed urgently.? - The Friday Times
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->`Islamic Republic of India´ By Aftab Alam<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Unmasking Jinnah’s Communalism: Sieving Facts from Fiction
By Dr. Vijay Rana

How can Jinnah, the lifelong campaigner for separate communal electorate, the advocate of two-nations theory, the opponent of 'Hindu Tyranny' and the initiator of India’s first mass violence campaign, the Direct Action Day, be described as a secular leader? Dr Vijay Rana tells you the true story of Jinnah, what many eminent historians and leading editors have assiduously tried to hide from you.

Even if the Aryans come out of their graves to tell us about their place of origin, some of our historians will refuse to listen to them. Blinded by their own ideologies, both the leftists and rightist historians have a long history of disputing the simplest facts such as the grass was green or sky was blue. Now Advani, though unwittingly, has given us an opportunity to debate the question that has haunted India since its partition in 1947. Was Muhammad Ali Jinnah a secular leader or a Muslim communalist?

In the last few days we have seen a blatant parody of facts and unashamed distortion of truth, that the most effective protagonist of Two-Nations Theory was a secular leader. Partition didn’t happen a thousand years ago. The eyewitnesses are around. Publications, audios and video films of Jinnah’s speeches are available. Yet India’s leading politicians, historians, journalists and commentators are engaged in a free for all history.

Some have accused Gandhi of introducing communalism in Indian politics. Others have blamed Nehru for wrecking the Cabinet Mission plan for a united India. They have argued that Jinnha was only responding to Hindu communalists of the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, thus accepting Jinnahs’s logic of an oppressive Hindu raj determined to ‘annihilation’ the Muslims and their culture in a free India. Others have come to the conclusion had the Congress accepted Jinnah’s demand of separate communal electorates and his sole right to represent Muslims, India could have been saved from the partition. They have been in effect arguing in favour of an internal communal separation of Hindus and Muslims in the independent India.

How interesting? Had we accepted Jinnah’s demands and saved India from partition imagine what kind of India we would have been living in? Muslims only voting for Muslim candidates and Hindus voting for only Hindus. And Congress or any other party could not have a Muslim minister because in Jinnah’s India only Muslim League could have appointed Muslim ministers.

Yet many of India’s secular stalwarts are not prepared to call Jinnah a communal leader. In a recent television programme India’s two leading historians made astonishing assertions. Presenter Karan Thaper asked a simple question, “was Jinnah communal?” Professor Mushirul Haq, the Vice Chancellor of Jamil Milia University, Delhi would only go as far as calling Jinnah ‘a Muslim sectarian’. Whereas the veteran historian Prof Bimal Prasad would only describe Jinnah as ‘a Muslim nationalist’. Both of them, despite being repeatedly questioned, refused to call Jinnah a communal leader.

The scholarly lawyer AG Noorani writing in the Frontline, went a step further arguing that Jinnah was ‘truly a great man. His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate.’ ‘Indians must begin to acknowledge, advised Noorani, ‘his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him.’ In this article, Noorani conveniently skipped any mention of Jinnah’s words or actions relating to his most active years, 1940-47. Because it was during these years Jinnah was hawking his favoured theory that ‘Hindus and Muslims are two nations and they cannot exist together’.

But the most ingenious distortion of history came from the Indian media’s darling, the British author Patrick French. He wrote in the Outlook that ‘Gandhi was a wily politician and Jinnah remained a secularist till his death.’ He argued that partition occurred because the Congress refused to accept Jinnah’s ‘justifiable demands’.

Then Ayasha Jalal, the Pakistani professor of history at the Tufts University, USA, wrote in the Outlook: ‘It was the Congress backed by the extreme right wing Hindu Mahasabha which plumped for a partition of the two main Muslim-majority provinces of India, the Punjab and Bengal, opposed by Jinnah and the League.’

Prof. Jalal must be at the forefront of the ‘Fictional school of History’. Imagine Nehru and Patel working in harmony with Hindu Mahasabha to achieve partition. Can you really believe it? Perhaps the Outlook can.

Interestingly, none of these protectors of Jinnah’s secularism mentioned, for once, Jinnah’s call for Direct Action on 16 August 1946 that unleashed an unprecedented wave of communal killings in the human history.

There is a mountain of evidence, surprisingly invisible to these eminent historians, proving that Jinnah began his political career as a secular leader but as the years passed by he was increasingly obsessed by and progressively dedicated to communal politics.

Whereas Gandhi lived and died for communal harmony, mutual tolerance, non-violence and peaceful resolution of disputes, Jinnah, always scornful of Gandhi, thrived on Hindu-Muslim strife, subscribing to the historically mislaid fear of the Hindu tyranny over Muslims in an independent India, a theory originally propounded by Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan as early as in 1888.

Jinnah’s conversion from a secularist to communalist was quick and continuous. After finishing his studies in England, Jinnah returned to India in 1896. In December 1906, he joined the Congress party as the personal secretary of the party president Dadabhai Naoroji.

He believed in the national unity and vigorously opposed the Muslim League demand of separate Muslim electorate as divisive, soon winning praise from poetess Sarojini Naidu as ‘the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’. Ironically, four years later in 1910, it was under this system of separate electorate, where only Muslims could vote for a Muslim candidate, that Jinnah was elected to the central legislative assembly as a Muslim member. This was the first step he unwittingly took on the long road to communalism.

Jinnah’s belief in Congress secularism soon began to waver. In 1913, he joined the Muslim League. A glance at the speeches, pamphlets and propaganda would reveal that the League leadership was avowedly communal, staunchly anti-Congress and openly anti-Hindu. Have a look at the speech of Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk, one of the founders of the Muslim League: ‘God forbid, if the British rule disappeared from India, Hindus will lord over it, and we will be in the constant danger of our life, property and honour.’ The question must be asked what was our ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity doing in the company of these rabid communalists. Within seven years of his entry into politics, a secular Jinnah has become, as Prof Bipin Chandra puts it, ‘a communal nationalist’.

Yet not all was lost. Despite sharing Muslim League’s communalist ideology and following it’s separate electorate agenda, Jinnah still talked about Hindu-Muslim unity. He was one of the driving forces behind the Congress-League pact of 1916.

But we must also look at the price our ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity was demanding. Jinnah was able to persuade the Congress party, now led by Tilak, to accept separate communal electorate and also a provision of communal reservations in the legislature.

Pakistani sources (Story of Pakistan) describe Lucknow Pact as a major milestone on the road to Pakistan. ‘As Congress agreed to separate electorates, it in fact agreed to consider the Muslims as a separate nation. They thus accepted the concept of the Two-Nation Theory.’

Later in 1936, Jinnah himself cited Lucknow Pact as the Congress admission of Hindu-Muslim separation: “When the Hindus accepted a separate identity for the Muslims through the Lucknow Pact in 1916, how can they now object to Pakistan?”

Interestingly, most of our history books still tell us that Lucknow Pact was a major triumph of Hindu-Muslim unity.

Many of our historians could be found blaming Gandhi for introducing communalism in the Indian national movement. In 1920, Gandhi made one more attempt for Hindu-Muslim unity by supporting the Muslim demand of retaining the pre-war status of the Ottoman Caliph. Jinnah opposed this Khilafat movement. His opposition was primarily focused on Gandhi, whom he considered a pseudo-religious upstart.

When Gandhi launched non-cooperation movement in 1920, Jinnah walked out of the Congress party, telling his friend, journalist Durga Das that in Gandhi’s Congress there was no place for him as ‘Gandhi worships cow and I eat it’, a argument he later repeated in his public speeches.

Despite clear and unequivocal communal rhetoric he was still given the benefit of doubt. He had transformed ‘from a nationalist into communal nationalist and then into liberal communalist,’ wrote Prof. Vipin Chandra. Whatever the fudging one thing was clear that by 1920 his belief in secularism, as preached by the Congress, had completely evaporated.

For next ten years as the President of the Muslim League Jinnah dedicated himself to strengthen the League, a party that claimed the exclusive right to represent the Muslims of India. In 1929, Jinnah came up with another plan demanding 33 percent representation for Muslims in the federal and provincial assemblies and ministries. A community could, Jinnah proposed, abandon its right of separate electorate if it wished. The plan was rejected by the Congress.

Between 1931-35 Jinnah left Indian politics and decided to set up his legal practice in London. But then in 1935 he moved back to Bombay. In the 1937 elections the Muslim League performed poorly, only getting 4.6 percent of the Muslim votes, whereas the Congress was able to form governments in seven of the eleven British Indian provinces. In 1939, when the Congress ministries resigned protesting against the British decision to push India in the War, Jinnah, by now a fierce opponent of the Congress rule, asked Muslim to observe a nationwide ‘Day of Deliverance’.

Another powerful influence that inspired Jinnha’s communal politics was poet Iqbal, the author of Tatana-e-Hindi - ‘Saare Jahan se Achcha Hindustan hamaara.’ Iqbal, another ex-ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, in his later years dreaded the prospects of democracy in India. Like Jinnah, he too believed that Muslims must be rescued from the imminent Hindu domination. Later, he wrote Tarana-e-Milli, anthem for the Muslim community, invoking the memories of Muslims conquerors of India.

He wrote eight letters to Jinnah telling him that he was the ‘only Muslim in India’ who could ‘safely guide the community through the storm’. He advised Jinnah to turn the League ‘into a body representing the Muslim masses’ and to demand the creation of ‘a free Muslim state or states’. Iqbal died shortly after writing these letters in 1937.

If Iqbal was the Mazini of Pakistan, laying the intellectual and ideological foundations, Jinnah took upon the role of Garibaldi, to execute that vision by all possible means with complete disregard to consequences, moral and human. As the Pakistani Prof. Akbar Ahmed writes: ‘Until now, Jinnah had spoken of separate electorates, minority representation and constitutional safeguards. Now he would use Islamic symbolism to represent Pakistan. The moon of Pakistan is rising, he would say. He would choose the crescent for the flag of Pakistan. Something had clearly changed in the way Jinnah was looking at the world.’

Over the years a great myth had been created that Jinnah really didn’t ask for Pakistan. That the word ‘Pakistan’ does not figure in the famous 1940 Lahore resolution.

But let’s look at the speech Jinnah made accompanying the resolution. He traced the history of ‘mutually separate’ cultural and religious traditions of Hindus and Muslims. ‘The cow that Hindus worship, Jinnah says, Muslims eat, the villains that Hindus malign, Muslims idolize and so on … The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures,’ Jinnah concluded. (Akbar Ahmed)

During the 1940s his tone, language and argument, while opposing Gandhi, Congress and Hindus, was brimming with hate and even abuse. His speeches were remarkably similar to the speeches of Hindu fundamentalists like Savarkar and Golwalkar. If Jinnah’s Islam was in danger of Hindu raj, so was Golwalkar’s Hindutva in danger of Islam. The only difference was that Jinnah drew crowds much bigger than Golwalkar or Savarkar ever did. A rational historical assessment would suggest that Golwalkar and Sarvarkar, despite substantial potential to vitiate the communal relations, always remained on the margins of Hindu society, but Jinnah, to the great anguish of leaders like Maulana Azad, was successfully poisioning the Muslim minds, openly provoking them for communal bloodshed.

In March 1940, Jinnah in a speech at Aligarh Muslim University accused Gandhi ‘to subjugate and vassalize the Muslims under a Hindu Raj’. Similarly, in a scathing attack on Gandhi, the RSS chief MS Golwalkar said: “Those who declare ‘no Swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unity’ have thus perpetrated the greatest treason on our society.’

While Golwalkar blamed Gandhi for asking ‘Hindus to submit meekly to the vandalism and atrocities of the Muslims’, Jinnah in his presidential address to the League, in April 1941, said, in a united India ‘Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence.’ He said Pakistan was essential ‘to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country.’ During the 1946 elections, he often described Congress as ‘caste Hindu Fascist Congress’.

In March 1944, addressing the students of the Ailgarh Muslim University Jinnah declared: <span style='color:red'>“Pakistan was born when the first Muslim landed in India in 712 A. D.” He asked the students to be prepared to shed their blood, if necessary, for achieving Pakistan. </span>This was an ominous pre-warning to what he was going to do next, to launch a murderous campaign to achieve Pakistan.

While preparing for ‘shedding the blood’ Jinnah was still officially negotiating with the Congress. Though the British pretended to be the honest brokers, every time they put forward a proposal for India’s independence, Jinnah’s goal of Pakistan looked increasingly probable.

In the August offer of 1939, the British came up with the idea of ‘communal veto’. They resolved not to leave India unless the minorities approved of any future constitutional arrangement. So Indian freedom was now subjected to Jinnah’s endorsement.

The 1942 Cripps proposals offered ‘provincial option’, allowing provinces to opt out of the future Indian federation. That’s what exactly Jinnah was fighting for, the Muslim provinces’ right to opt out of India.

In the 1945 Simla Conference, Jinnah fought for Hindu-Muslim parity in any future government. He also insisted that in any interim government all the Muslim ministers would have to be nominated by the League. He was in effect asking Congress to renounce its national and secular character and reduce itself merely to be a Hindu party.

In 1946, the British government sent a mission of three cabinet ministers for a final rapprochement between the Congress and the League. The Cabinet Mission plan provided for a loose center controlling only defense, foreign affairs and communications. Provinces were to be divided in three groups. Group A comprised of Hindu majority provinces of UP, Bihar, CP, Orissa, Madras and Bombay. Group B included the Muslim majority Punjab, Sind and NWFP and Group C consisted of the Muslim majority Bengal and Assam. The provinces were allowed to opt out of these groups after the first election.

The Congress accepted the plan and so did the League. Many believed, and some still rather deludingly believe, that Jinnah had thus abandoned the idea of Pakistan. But let’s not fool ourselves and have a look at the League’s acceptance document drafted by Jinnah. The League had accepted the plan with its own spin, ‘inasmuch as the basis of and the foundation of Pakistan are inherent in the Mission’s plan by virtue of the compulsory grouping.’

Even this acceptance was hastily withdrawn after Nehru pointed out that it would be the newly formed constituent assembly that would finally decide the composition of provincial groups.

In his autobiography ‘India Wins Freedom’ Maulana Azad blamed Nehru for wrecking this final bid to save India from partition. It’s sad that Azad, the greatest Indian Muslim who fought against the communalism of the League, who devoted his life to the creation of a secular and democratic India and who often suffered Jinnah’s humiliating jibes as ‘the Congress show-boy’, did a great disservice to the understanding of the partition.

The theory of ‘bargaining counter’ is supported by many, from Azad to the Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal and the eminent jurist M. C. Chagla, who wrote in his autobiography, ‘Roses in December’: “To him (Jinnah) it was more of a bargaining counter, and if we had bargained properly, he would have given up the idea of Pakistan and accepted a united India.”<b>

If we go by this thesis of Jinnah’s demand of Pakistan just being a bargaining counter, than one must ask why Jinnah was provoking his own people to fight for Pakistan. Why was he frightening millions of Muslims of the impending specter of Hindu tyranny? If the bargaining counter theory is to be believed then Jinnah comes out as a diabolical figure fooling his own community and building up false hopes.</b> He was provoking Muslims to ‘shed blood’ at one hand and negotiating power sharing deals with the Hindu leaders on the other hand.

In August 1946, Jinnah breached another boundary of sober and sensible politics. The one time advocate of constitutional propriety now espoused violence and even terror.

How would the defenders of Jinnah’s secularism support his call for Direct Action: ‘This day we bid good-bye to constitutional methods,” he declared. “ We have forged a pistol and we are prepared to use it,” he declared.

On 16 August 1946, the frenzied League mobs rampaged Hindu neighbourhoods in Calcutta. Hindu communal groups retaliated with equal brutality. Ten thousand innocent lives were lost in just five days in the Great Calcutta Killings. Quickly the fires of communal hatred spread from Bengal to Punjab consuming millions of lives. They burnt until Jinnah got his precious ‘Muslim homeland’.

As soon as he became Governor-General, Jinnah in a dramatic u-turn advised Muslims in Pakistan to live peacefully with their Hindu neighbours. His followers wondered if it was not possible for them to live with Hindus in India, how could they live with Hindus in Pakistan. They refused to listen to him. <span style='color:red'>When Pakistan was born in August 1947, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians formed 26 percent of its population. Today less then three percent of them are left in Pakistan.</span>

This is not ancient history buried under the multiple layers of unexcavated earth. Any historian, true to his/her profession, with elementary knowledge of Jinnah’s beliefs, actions and legacy could easily conclude that he used and abused Muslim faith and consciousness for his political ends. For a historian such a man cannot be secular. Flight of imagination is the exclusive preserve of fiction writers.

Journalist and broadcaster Vijay Rana, after doing his D Phil on India’s transfer of power from Allahabad University, moved on to the BBC in London in the early eighties. He now edits www.historytalking.com, a web-radio dedicated to South Asian oral history and heritage. Email: editor@historytalking.com
A few myth busters about this pakhistory.com website. Pakhistory.com is run by Haroon Chaudhary (who lives in New Jersey). He runs a bunch of websites including Defencetalk.com and India-facts.com. He is a through and through jehadi who's been spreading serious anti-India propaganda on the internet.
I've been following the contents of this forum for several months now. Must have read most topics here. Some are most interesting and others are extremely worrying. Inertia kept me from registering until now. Still have to hunt down all the threads I want to participate in, but this latest one caught my eye.

I've come across India-facts.com. It's full of a few out-of-context or twisted statements from news articles cramped amidst generous helpings of untruth. There are some ignorant people out there ready and willing to believe the drivel of such obscure sites, without bothering to verify content for themselves. If the guy who runs india-facts has set up Pakhistory, no doubt it will be linked off wikipedia, just like Pak-sponsored dalitstan site is. Most sections relating to Indian history in wikipedia already read like a PakHistory. Perhaps Haroon or others like him fancy using his new propaganda site as a referencing source for wikipedia and other such unreliable 'user-contributed' encyclopaedias?
Pakistan's Historical Background

<b>History in Chronological Order</b>

Dawn of Islam
Urdu National Language
Khilafat Movement
Simon Commission
Pakistan Movement

Pakistan emerged on the world map on August 14,1947. It has its roots into the remote past. Its establishment was the culmination of the struggle by Muslims of the South-Asian subcontinent for a separate homeland of their own and its foundation was laid when Muhammad bin Qasim subdued Sindh in 711 A.D. as a reprisal against sea pirates that had taken refuge in Raja Dahir's kingdom.

The advent of Islam further strengthened the historical individuality in the areas now constituting Pakistan and further beyond its boundaries. Stone Age Some of the earliest relics of Stone Age man in the subcontinent are found in the Soan Valley of the Potohar region near Rawalpindi, with a probable antiquity of about 500,000 years. No human skeleton of such antiquity has yet been discovered in the area, but the crude stone implements recovered from the terraces of the Soan carry the saga of human toil and labor in this part of the world to the inter-glacial period. These Stone Age men fashioned their implements in a sufficiently homogenous way to justify their grouping in terms of a culture called the Soan Culture. About 3000 B.C, amidst the rugged wind-swept valleys and foothills of Balochistan, small village communities developed and began to take the first hesitant steps towards civilization. Here, one finds a more continuous story of human activity, though still in the Stone Age.

These pre-historic men established their settlements, both as herdsmen and as farmers, in the valleys or on the outskirts of the plains with their cattle and cultivated barley and other crops. Red and buffer Cultures Careful excavations of the pre-historic mounds in these areas and the classification of their contents, layer by layer, have grouped them into two main categories of Red Ware Culture and Buff Ware Culture. The former is popularly known as the Zhob Culture of North Balochistan, while the latter comprises the Quetta, Amri Nal and Kulli Cultures of Sindh and South Balochistan. Some Amri Nal villages or towns had stone walls and bastions for defence purposes and their houses had stone foundations. At Nal, an extensive cemetery of this culture consists of about 100 graves. An important feature of this composite culture is that at Amri and certain other sites, it has been found below the very distinctive Indus Valley Culture. On the other hand, the steatite seals of Nal and the copper implements and certain types of pot decoration suggest a partial overlap between the two. It probably represents one of the local societies which constituted the environment for the growth of the Indus Valley Civilization.

The pre-historic site of Kot Diji in the Sindh province has provided information of high significance for the reconstruction of a connected story which pushes back the origin of this civilization by 300 to 500 years, from about 2500 B.C.. to at least 2800 B.C. Evidence of a new cultural elements of pre-Harappan era has been traced here. Pre-Harappan Civilization When the primitive village communities in the Balochistan area were still struggling against a difficult highland environment, a highly cultured people were trying to assert themselves at Kot Diji, one of the most developed urban civilizations of the ancient world which flourished between the years 2500 and 1500 B.C. in the Indus Valley sites of Moenjodaro and Harappa. These Indus Valley people possessed a high standard of art and craftsmanship and a well developed system of quasi pictographic writing, which despite continuing efforts still remains undeciphered. The imposing ruins of the beautifully planned Moenjodaro and Harappa towns present clear evidence of the unity of a people having the same mode of life and using the same kind of tools. Indeed, the brick buildings of the common people, the public baths, the roads and covered drainage system suggest the picture of a happy and contented people. Aryan Civilization In or about 1500 B.C., the Aryans descended upon the Punjab and settled in the Sapta Sindhu, which signifies the Indus plain. They developed a pastoral society that grew into the Rigvedic Civilization. The Rigveda is replete with hymns of praise for this region, which they describe as "God fashioned". It is also clear that so long as the Sapta Sindhu remained the core of the Aryan Civilization, it remained free from the caste system. The caste institution and the ritual of complex sacrifices took shape in the Gangetic Valley. There can be no doubt that the Indus Civilization contributed much to the development of the Aryan civilization. Gandhara Culture The discovery of the Gandhara grave culture in Dir and Swat will go a long way in throwing light on the period of Pakistan's cultural history between the end of the Indus Culture in 1500 B.C. and the beginning of the historic period under the Achaemenians in the sixth century B.C. Hindu mythology and Sanskrit literary traditions seem to attribute the destruction of the Indus civilization to the Aryans, but what really happened, remains a mystery. The Gandhara grave culture has opened up two periods in the cultural heritage of Pakistan: one of the Bronze Age and the other of the Iron Age. It is so named because it presents a peculiar pattern of living in hilly zones of the Gandhara region as evidenced in the graves. This culture is different from the Indus Culture and has little relations with the village culture of Balochistan. Stratigraphy as well as the artifacts discovered from this area suggest that the Aryans moved into this part of the world between 1,500 and 600 B.C. In the sixth century B.C., Buddha began his teachings, which later on spread throughout the northern part of the South-Asian subcontinent. It was towards the end of this century, too, that Darius I of Iran organized Sindh and Punjab as the twentieth satrapy of his empire.

There are remarkable similarities between the organizations of that great empire and the Mauryan empire of the third century B.C., while Kautilya's Arthshastra also shows a strong Persian influence, Alexander of Macedonia after defeating Darius III in 330 B.C. had also marched through the South-Asian subcontinent up to the river Beas, but Greek influence on the region appears to have been limited to contributing a little to the establishment of the Mauryan empire. The great empire that Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, built in the subcontinent included only that part of the Indus basin which is now known as the northern Punjab. The rest of the areas astride the Indus were not subjugated by him. These areas, which now form a substantial part of Pakistan, were virtually independent from the time of the Guptas in the fourth century A.D. until the rise of the Delhi Sultanate in the thirteenth century. Gandhara Art Gandhara Art, one of the most prized possessions of Pakistan, flourished for a period of 500 years (from the first to the fifth century A.D.) in the present valley of Peshawar and the adjacent hilly regions of Swat, Buner and Bajaur. This art represents a separate phase of the cultural renaissance of the region. It was the product of a blending of Indian, Buddhist and Greco-Roman sculpture. Gandhara Art in its early stages received the patronage of Kanishka, the great Kushan ruler, during whose reign the Silk Route ran through Peshawar and the Indus Valley, bringing great prosperity to the whole area. Advent of Islam The first followers of prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), to set foot on the soil of the South-Asian subcontinent, were traders from the coast land of Arabia and the Persian Gulf, soon after the dawn of Islam in the early seventh century A.D.

The first permanent Muslim foothold in the subcontinent was achieved with Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh in 711 A.D.</b> An autonomous Muslim state linked with the Umayyed, and later, the Abbassid Caliphate was established with jurisdiction extending over southern and central parts of present Pakistan. Quite a few new cities were established and Arabic was introduced as the official language. At the time of Mahmud of Ghazna's invasion, Muslim rule still existed, though in a weakened form, in Multan and some other regions. The Ghaznavids (976-1148) and their successors, the Ghaurids (1148-1206), were Central Asian by origin and they ruled their territories, which covered mostly the regions of present Pakistan, from capitals outside India. It was in the early thirteenth century that the foundations of the Muslim rule in India were laid with extended boundaries and Delhi as the capital. From 1206 to 1526 A.D., five different dynasties held sway. Then followed the period of Mughal ascendancy (1526-1707) and their rule continued, though nominally, till 1857. From the time of the Ghaznavids, Persian more or less replaced Arabic as the official language. The economic, political and religious institutions developed by the Muslims bore their unique impression. The law of the State was based on Shariah and in principle the rulers were bound to enforce it. Any long period of laxity was generally followed by reinforcement of these laws under public pressure. The impact of Islam on the South-Asian subcontinent was deep and far-reaching. Islam introduced not only a new religion, but a new civilization, a new way of life and new set of values. Islamic traditions of art and literature, of culture and refinement, of social and welfare institution, were established by Muslim rulers throughout the subcontinent. A new language, Urdu, derived mainly from Arabic and Persian vocabulary and adopting indigenous words and idioms, came to be spoken and written by the Muslims and it gained currency among the rest of the Indian population.


Apart from religion, Urdu also enabled the Muslim community during the period of its ascendancy to preserve its separate identity in the subcontinent.
<span style='color:red'>
Muslim Identity -- The question of Muslim identity, however assumed seriousness during the decline of Muslim power in South Asia. The first person to realize its acuteness was the scholar theologian, Shah Waliullah (1703-62). He laid the foundation of Islamic renaissance in the subcontinent and became a source of inspiration for almost all the subsequent social and religious reform movements of the nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. His immediate successors, inspired by his teachings, tried to establish a modest Islamic state in the north-west of India and they, under the leadership of Sayyed Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi (1786-1831), persevered in this direction.</span> British Expansionism and Muslim Resistance Meanwhile, starting with the East India Company, the British had emerged as the dominant force in South Asia. Their rise to power was gradual extending over a period of nearly one hundred years. They replaced the Shariah by what they termed as the Anglo-Muhammadan law whereas Urdu was replaced by English as the official language. These and other developments had great social, economic and political impact especially on the Muslims of South Asia. The uprising of 1857, termed as the Indian Mutiny by the British and the War of Independence by the Muslims, was a desperate attempt to reverse the adverse course of events. Religious Institutions The failure of the 1857 War of Independence had disastrous consequences for the Muslims as the British placed all the responsibility for this event on them. Determined to stop such a recurrence in future, the British followed deliberately a repressive policy against the Muslims. Properties and estates of those even remotely associated with the freedom fighters were confiscated and conscious efforts were made to close all avenues of honest living for them. The Muslim response to this situation also aggravated their plight. Their religious leaders, who had been quite active, withdrew from the mainstream of the community life and devoted themselves exclusively to imparting religious education. Although the religious academies especially those of Deoband, Farangi Mahal and Rai Bareilly, established by the Ulema, did help the Muslims to preserve their identity, the training provided in these institutions hardly equipped them for the new challenges. Educational Reform The Muslims kept themselves aloof from western education as well as government service. But, their compatriots, the Hindus, did not do so and accepted the new rulers without reservation. They acquired western education, imbibed the new culture and captured positions hitherto filled in by the Muslims. If this situation had prolonged, it would have done the Muslims an irreparable damage. The man to realise the impending peril was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1889), a witness to the tragic events of 1857. He exerted his utmost to harmonize British Muslim relations. His assessment was that the Muslims' safety lay in the acquisition of western education and knowledge. He took several positive steps to achieve this objective. He founded a college at Aligarh to impart education on western lines. Of equal importance was the Anglo-Muhammadan Educational Conference, which he sponsored in 1886, to provide an intellectual forum to the Muslims for the dissemination of views in support of western education and social reform. Similar were the objectives of the Muhammadan Literary Society, founded by Nawab Adbul Latif (1828-93), active in Bengal, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's efforts transformed into a movement, known as the Aligarh Movement, and it left its imprint on the Muslims of every part of the South-Asian subcontinent. Under its inspiration, societies were founded throughout the subcontinent which established educational institutions for imparting education to the Muslims.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was averse to the idea of participation by the Muslims in any organized political activity which, he feared, might revive British hostility towards them. He also disliked Hindu Muslim collaboration in any joint venture. His disillusionment in this regard stemmed basically from the Urdu Hindi controversy of the late 1860s when the Hindu enthusiasts vehemently championed the cause of Hindi to replace Urdu. He, therefore, opposed the Indian National Congress when it was founded in 1885 and advised the Muslims to abstain from its activities. His contemporary and a great scholar of Islam, Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928), shared his views about the Congress, but, he was not opposed to Muslims organizing themselves politically. In fact, he organised the first significant political body of the Muslims, the Central National Muhammadan Association. Although, its membership was limited, it had more than 50 branches in different parts of the subcontinent and it accomplished some solid work for the educational and political advancement of the Muslims. But, its activities waned towards the end of the nineteenth century. The Muslim League At the dawn of the twentieth century, a number of factors convinced the Muslims of the need to have an effective political organization. Therefore, in October 1906, a deputation comprising 35 Muslim leaders met the Viceroy of the British at Simla and demanded separate electorates. Three months later, the All-India Muslim League was founded by Nawab Salimullah Khan at Dhaka, mainly with the objective of safeguarding the political rights and interests of the Muslims. The British conceded separate electorates in the Government of India Act of 1909 which confirmed the Muslim League's position as an All-India party. Attempt for Hindu Muslim Unity The visible trend of the two major communities progressing in opposite directions caused deep concern to leaders of All-India stature. They struggled to bring the Congress and the Muslim League on one platform. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was the leading figure among them. After the annulment of the partition of Bengal and the European Powers' aggressive designs against the Ottoman Empire and North Africa, the Muslims were receptive to the idea of collaboration with the Hindus against the British rulers.

The Congress Muslim League rapprochement was achieved at the Lucknow sessions of the two parties in 1916 and a joint scheme of reforms was adopted. In the Lucknow Pact. as the scheme was commonly referred to, the Congress accepted the principle of separate electorates, and the Muslims, in return for `weightage' to the Muslims of the Muslim minority provinces, agreed to surrender their thin majorities in the Punjab and Bengal. The post Lucknow Pact period witnessed Hindu Muslim amity and the two parties came to hold their annual sessions in the same city and passed resolutions of identical contents.


The Hindu Muslim unity reached its climax during the Khilafat and the Non-cooperation Movements. The Muslims of soothsayer, under the leadership of the Ali Brothers, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, launched the historic Khilafat Movement after the First World War to protect the Ottoman Empire from dismemberment. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) linked the issue of Swaraj (self-government) with the Khilafat issue to associate the Hindus with the Movement. the ensuing Movement was the first countrywide popular movement.

Although the Movement failed in its objectives, it had a far-reaching impact on the Muslims of South Asia. After a long time, they took united action on a purely Islamic issue which momentarily forged solidarity among them. It also produced a class of Muslim leaders experienced in organizing and mobilizing the public. This experience was of immense value to the Muslims later during the Pakistan Movement The collapse of the Khilafat Movement was followed by a period of bitter Hindu Muslim antagonism. The Hindus organized two highly anti Muslim movements, the Shudhi and the Sangathan. The former movement was designed to convert Muslims to Hinduism and the latter was meant to create solidarity among the Hindus in the event of communal conflict. In retaliation, the Muslims sponsored the Tabligh and Tanzim organizations to counter the impact of the Shudhi and the Sangathan. In the 1920s, the frequency of communal riots was unprecedented. Several Hindu-Muslim unity conferences were held to remove the causes of conflict, but, it seemed nothing could mitigate the intensity of communalism. Muslim Demand Safeguards In the light of this situation, the Muslims revised their constitutional demands. They now wanted preservation of their numerical majorities in the Punjab and Bengal, separation of Sindh from Bombay, constitution of Balochistan as a separate province and introduction of constitutional reforms in the North-West Frontier Province. It was partly to press these demands that one section of the All-India Muslim League cooperated with the Statutory commission sent by the British Government under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon in 1927.


The other section of the League, which boycotted the Simon Commission for its all-White character, cooperated with the Nehru Committee, appointed by the All-Parties Conference, to draft a constitution for India. The Nehru Report had an extremely anti-Muslim bias and the Congress leadership's refusal to amend it disillusioned even the moderate Muslims. Allama Muhammad Iqbal Several leaders and thinkers, having insight into the Hindu-Muslim question proposed separation of Muslim India. However, the most lucid exposition of the inner feeling of the Muslim community was given by Allama Muhammad Iqbal(1877-1938) in his Presidential Address at the All-India Muslim League Session at Allahabad in 1930. He suggested that for the healthy development of Islam in South-Asia, it was essential to have a separate Muslim state at least in the Muslim majority regions of the north-west. Later on, in his correspondence with Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he included the Muslim majority areas in the north-east also in his proposed Muslim state. Three years after his Allahabad Address, a group of Muslim students at Cambridge, headed by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, issued a pamphlet, Now or Never, in which drawing letters from the names of the Muslim majority regions, they gave the nomenclature of "Pakistan" to the proposed State. Very few even among the Muslim welcomed the idea at the time. It was to take a decade for the Muslims to embrace the demand for a separate Muslim state. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Meanwhile, three Round Table Conferences were convened in London during 1930-32, to resolve the Indian constitutional problem. The Hindu and Muslim leaders, who were invited to these conferences, could not draw up an agreed formula and the British Government had to announce a `Communal Award' which was incorporated in the Government of India Act of 1935. Before the elections under this Act, the All-India Muslim League, which had remained dormant for some time, was reorganized by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who had returned to India in 1934,after an absence of nearly five years in England. The Muslim League could not win a majority of Muslim seats since it had not yet been effectively reorganized. However, it had the satisfaction that the performance of the Indian National Congress in the Muslim constituencies was bad. After the elections, the attitude of the Congress leadership was arrogant and domineering. The classic example was its refusal to form a coalition government with the Muslim League in the United Provinces. Instead, it asked the League leaders to dissolve their parliamentary arty in the Provincial Assembly and join the Congress. Another important Congress move after the 1937 elections was its Muslim mass contact movement to persuade the Muslims to join the Congress and not the Muslim League. One of its leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru, even declared that there were only two forces in India, the British and the Congress. All this did not go unchallenged.

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah countered that there was a third force in South-Asia constituting the Muslims. The All-India Muslim League, under his gifted leadership, gradually and skillfully started organising the Muslims on one platform. Towards a Separate Muslim Homeland The 1930s witnessed awareness among the Muslims of their separate identity and their anxiety to preserve it within separate territorial boundaries. An important element that brought this simmering Muslim nationalism in the open was the character of the Congress rule in the Muslim minority provinces during 1937-39. The Congress policies in these provinces hurt Muslim susceptibilities. There were calculated aims to obliterate the Muslims as a separate cultural unit. The Muslims now stopped thinking in terms of seeking safeguards and began to consider seriously the demand for a separate Muslim state. During 1937-39, several Muslim leaders and thinkers, inspired by Allama Iqbal's ideas, presented elaborate schemes for partitioning the subcontinent according to two-nation theory. Pakistan Resolution The All-India Muslim League soon took these schemes into consideration and finally, on March 23, 1940, the All-India Muslim League, in a resolution, at its historic Lahore Session, demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims in the Muslim majority regions of the subcontinent. The resolution was commonly referred to as the Pakistan Resolution. The Pakistan demand had a great appeal for the Muslims of every persuasion. It revived memories of their past greatness and promised future glory. They, therefore, responded to this demand immediately. Cripps Mission The British Government recognized the genuineness of the Pakistan demand indirectly in the proposals for the transfer of power after the Second World War which Sir Stafford Cripps brought to India in 1942. Both the Congress and the All-India Muslim League rejected these proposals for different reasons. The principles of secession of Muslim India as a separate Dominion was however, conceded in these proposals. After this failure, a prominent Congress leader, C. Rajgopalacharia, suggested a formula for a separate Muslim state in the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, which was rejected at the time, but later on, in 1944, formed the basis of the Jinnah-Gandhi talks. Demand for Pakistan


The Pakistan demand became popular during the Second World War Every section of the Muslim community-men , women, students, Ulema and businessmen-were organized under the banner of the All-India Muslim League. Branches of the party were opened even in the remote corners of the subcontinent. Literature in the form of pamphlets, books, magazines and newspapers was produced to explain the Pakistan demand and distributed widely. The support gained by the All-India Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan was tested after the failure of the Simla Conference, convened by the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, in 1945. Elections were called to determine the respective strength of the political parties. The All-India Muslim League election campaign was based on the Pakistan demand. The Muslim community responded to this call in an unprecedented way. Numerous Muslim parties were formed making united parliamentary board at the behest of the Congress to oppose the Muslim League. But the All-India Muslim League swept all the thirty seats in the Central Legislature and in the provincial elections also, its victory was outstanding. After the elections, on April 8-9,1946, the All-India Muslim League called a convention of the newly-elected League members in the Central and Provincial Legislatures at Delhi. This convention, which constituted virtually a representative assembly of the Muslims of South Asia, on a motion by the Chief Minister of Bengal, Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, reiterated the Pakistan demand in clearer terms. Cabinet Plan In early 1946, the British Government sent a Cabinet Mission to the subcontinent to resolve the constitutional deadlock. The Mission conducted negotiations with various political parties, but failed to evolve an agreed formula. Finally, the Cabinet Mission announced its own Plan, which among other provisions, envisaged three federal groupings, two of them comprising the Muslim majority provinces, linked at the Centre in a loose federation with three subjects. The Muslim League accepted the plan, as a strategic move, expecting to achieve its objective in not-too-distant a future. The All-India Congress also agreed to the Plan, but, soon realising its implications, the Congress leaders began to interpret it in a way not visualized by the authorise of the Plan. This provided the All-India Muslim League an excuse to withdraw its acceptance of the Plan and the party observed August 16, as a `Direct Action Day' to show Muslim solidarity in support of the Pakistan demand. Partition Scheme In October 1946, an Interim Government was formed. The Muslim League sent its representative under the leadership of its General Secretary, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, with the aim to fight for the party objective from within the Interim Government. After a short time, the situation inside the Interim Government and outside convinced the Congress leadership to accept Pakistan as the only solution of the communal problem. The British Government, after its last attempt to save the Cabinet Mission Plan in December 1946, also moved towards a scheme for the partition of India. The last British Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, came with a clear mandate to draft a plan for the transfer of power.

After holding talks with political leaders and parties, he prepared a Partition Plan for the transfer of power, which, after approval of the British Government, was announced on June 3,1947. Emergence of Pakistan Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Plan. Two largest Muslim majority provinces, Bengal and Punjab, were partitioned. The Assemblies of West Punjab, East Bengal and Sindh and in Balochistan, the Quetta Municipality, and the Shahi Jirga voted for Pakistan. Referenda were held in the North-West Frontier Province and the District of Sylhet in Assam, which resulted in an overwhelming vote for Pakistan. As a result, on August 14,1947, the new state of Pakistan came into existence.

Pakistan History

In ancient times, the area that now comprises Pakistan marked the farthest reaches of the conquests of Alexander the Great. It was also the home of Buddhist Ghandaran culture. It was not until 1947 and the independence of India, that Pakistan acquired nationhood. Under pressure from Indian Muslims led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah - considered to be the 'father of the nation' - the British created a separate Muslim state. Originally, it consisted of two parts, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now a single unitary state), separated from each other by 1600km (1000 miles) of Indian territory. Jinnah, the leading Muslim inside the Indian Congress party that led the independence struggle (see India section), became the new country's first president.

In contrast to India, democracy failed to take root and Pakistan suffered prolonged periods of military rule. The first of these came in 1958, when martial law was declared and political parties abolished. The martial law 'co-ordinator', General (later Field Marshall) Ayub Khan, became President in 1960. He was replaced in 1969, by the Commander-in-Chief of the army, General Agha Muhammed Yahya Khan, who resisted demands for autonomy by the eastern region of the country, where civil war broke out in 1971. The intervention of the Indian army on the side of the secessionists eventually secured an independent Bangladesh, leaving a truncated Pakistan in the west. Democratic civilian government followed the defeat and President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto took over as president from the discredited military regime.

In 1977, however, the military again took power in a coup and re-established martial law under General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. Bhutto was executed in 1979. Military rule continued until the death of General Zia in a plane crash in 1988, after which a democratic constitution and civilian government were re-instituted.

A decade of revolving-door civilian politics followed in which the main participants were Ali Bhutto's daughter Benazir, and Mohammed Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Islamic Democratic Alliance (IDA). The IDA was essentially a military creation, designed to maintain their influence as far as possible over national politics. Benazir Bhutto took over the leadership of her father's old party, the Pakistan People's Party. Sharif and Bhutto contested four elections - all tainted by extensive political violence - during the next 10 years, winning two each. Both Bhutto governments and the first Sharif government were dismissed by presidential decree for the same reasons: incompetence, nepotism and corruption. Little if any headway was made in tackling Pakistan's huge political and economic problems. The second Sharif administration also came to a premature end but this time it was the military who intervened after having stood on the sidelines in increasing frustration for the previous 10 years.

The trigger was Pakistan's controversial nuclear weapons program. This had begun in 1971, after Pakistan's defeat by India, and progressed steadily with Chinese assistance thereafter. Pakistan is now believed to possess at least a handful of nuclear warheads and the means of delivery. In 2004, the head of the program, Abdul Qadir Khan, was revealed to have organized the sale of nuclear technology and expertise to several other countries, including Iran and Libya. This has caused a crisis in relations with the West at a sensitive time: Pakistan is a vital ally in the American-led "war on terror".

The original motivation for the nuclear program was ensuring parity with India, which has also developed its own nuclear weapons. The Indo-Pakistan conflict is a central feature of Pakistani politics, particularly with regards to the attitude and posture of the military. At its heart is the long-running dispute over the status of Kashmir which, although it has a majority Muslim population, became part of India (rather than Pakistan) in the 1947 partition. There have been regular small-scale engagements between the Indian and Pakistani armies in the border region, as well as frequent attacks by guerrilla forces (variously backed by either side). The two sides have almost come to war on several occasions. Given the possible consequences, urgent high-level diplomacy, usually involving America or Russia, has been deployed to force the antagonists to back down. More recently the two sides have been talking and in February 2004 agreed on a "road map" which has hopefully began the process towards a path to a final settlement. No resolution has yet been found but both governments have pledged their commitment to peace. A proposed bus route that would link the disputed territory is the latest initiative in the drive for peace.
<b>History of Pakistan </b>
Pakistan, along with parts of western India, contain the archeological remains of an urban civilization dating back 4,500 years. Alexander the Great included the Indus Valley in his empire in 326 B.C., and his successors founded the Indo-Greek kingdom of Bactria based in what is today Afghanistan and extending to Peshawar. Following the rise of the Central Asian Kushan Empire in later centuries, the Buddhist culture of Afghanistan and Pakistan, centered on the city of Taxila just east of Peshawar, experienced a cultural renaissance known as the Gandhara period.

Pakistan's Islamic history began with the arrival of Muslim traders in the 8th century in Sindh. The collapse of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century provided an opportunity to the English East India Company to extend its control over much of the subcontinent. In the west in the territory of modern Pakistan, the Sikh adventurer Ranjit Singh carved out a dominion that extended from Kabul to Srinagar and Lahore. British rule replaced the Sikhs in the first half of the 19th century. In a decision that had far-reaching consequences, the British permitted the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir, a Sikh appointee, to continue in power.

Pakistan emerged over an extended period of agitation by many Muslims in the subcontinent to express their national identity free from British colonial domination as well as domination by what they perceived as a Hindu-controlled Indian National Congress. Muslim anti-colonial leaders formed the All-India Muslim League in 1906. Initially, the League adopted the same objective as the Congress--self-government for India within the British Empire--but Congress and the League were unable to agree on a formula that would ensure the protection of Muslim religious, economic, and political rights.

Pakistan and Partition

The idea of a separate Muslim state emerged in the 1930s. On March 23, 1940, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, formally endorsed the "Lahore Resolution," calling for the creation of an independent state in regions where Muslims constituted a majority. At the end of World War II, the United Kingdom moved with increasing urgency to grant India independence. The Congress Party and the Muslim League, however, could not agree on the terms for a Constitution or establishing an interim government. In June 1947, the British Government declared that it would bestow full dominion status upon two successor states--India and Pakistan, formed from areas in the subcontinent in which Muslims were the majority population. Under this arrangement, the various princely states could freely join either India or Pakistan. Accordingly, on August 14, 1947 Pakistan, comprising West Pakistan with the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), and East Pakistan with the province of Bengal, became independent. East Pakistan later became the independent nation of Bangladesh.

The Maharaja of Kashmir was reluctant to make a decision on accession to either Pakistan or India. However, armed incursions into the state by tribesman from the NWFP led him to seek military assistance from India. The Maharaja signed accession papers in October 1947 and allowed Indian troops into much of the state. The Government of Pakistan, however, refused to recognize the accession and campaigned to reverse the decision. The status of Kashmir has remained in dispute.

After Independence

With the death in 1948 of its first head of state, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and the assassination in 1951 of its first prime minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, political instability and economic difficulty became prominent features of post-independence Pakistan. On October 7, 1958, President Iskander Mirza, with the support of the army, suspended the 1956 Constitution, imposed martial law, and canceled the elections scheduled for January 1959. Twenty days later the military sent Mirza into exile in Britain, and Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan assumed control of a military dictatorship. After Pakistan's loss in the 1965 war against India, Ayub Khan's power declined. Subsequent political and economic grievances inspired agitation movements that compelled his resignation in March 1969. He handed over responsibility for governing to the commander in chief of the army, General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan, who became President and Chief Martial Law Administrator.

General elections held in December 1970 polarized relations between the eastern and western sections of Pakistan. The Awami League, which advocated autonomy for the more populous East Pakistan, swept the East Pakistan seats to gain a majority in Pakistan as a whole. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), founded and led by Ayub Khan's former Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, won a majority of the seats in West Pakistan, but the country was completely split with neither major party having any support in the other area. Negotiations to form a coalition government broke down, and a civil war ensued. India attacked East Pakistan and captured Dhaka in December 1971, when the eastern section declared itself the independent nation of Bangladesh. Yahya Khan then resigned the presidency and handed over leadership of the western part of Pakistan to Bhutto, who became President and the first civilian Chief Martial Law Administrator.

Bhutto moved decisively to restore national confidence and pursued an active foreign policy, taking a leading role in Islamic and Third World forums. Although Pakistan did not formally join the Non-Aligned Movement until 1979, the position of the Bhutto government coincided largely with that of the non-aligned nations. Domestically, Bhutto pursued a populist agenda and nationalized major industries and the banking system. In 1973, he promulgated a new Constitution accepted by most political elements and relinquished the presidency to become prime minister. Although Bhutto continued his populist and socialist rhetoric, he increasingly relied on Pakistan's urban industrialists and rural landlords. Over time the economy stagnated, largely as a result of the dislocation and uncertainty produced by Bhutto's frequently changing economic policies. When Bhutto proclaimed his own victory in the March 1977 national elections, the opposition Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) denounced the results as fraudulent and demanded new elections. Bhutto resisted and later arrested the PNA leadership.

1977-1985 Martial Law

With increasing anti-government unrest, the army grew restive. On July 5, 1977, the military removed Bhutto from power and arrested him, declared martial law, and suspended portions of the 1973 Constitution. Chief of Army Staff Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq became Chief Martial Law Administrator and promised to hold new elections within 3 months.

Zia released Bhutto and asserted that he could contest new elections scheduled for October 1977. However, after it became clear that Bhutto's popularity had survived his government, Zia postponed the elections and began criminal investigations of the senior PPP leadership. Subsequently, Bhutto was convicted and sentenced to death for alleged conspiracy to murder a political opponent. Despite international appeals on his behalf, Bhutto was hanged on April 6, 1979.

Zia assumed the presidency and called for elections in November. However, fearful of a PPP victory, Zia banned political activity in October 1979 and postponed national elections.

In 1980, most center and left parties, led by the PPP, formed the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD). The MRD demanded Zia's resignation, an end to martial law, new elections, and restoration of the Constitution as it existed before Zia's takeover. In early December 1984, President Zia proclaimed a national referendum for December 19 on his "Islamization" program. He implicitly linked approval of "Islamization" with a mandate for his continued presidency. Zia's opponents, led by the MRD, boycotted the elections. When the government claimed a 63% turnout, with more than 90% approving the referendum, many observers questioned these figures.


On August 17, 1988, a plane carrying President Zia, American Ambassador Arnold Raphel, U.S. Brig. General Herbert Wassom, and 28 Pakistani military officers crashed on a return flight from a military equipment trial near Bahawalpur, killing all of its occupants. In accordance with the Constitution, Chairman of the Senate Ghulam Ishaq Khan became Acting President and announced that elections scheduled for November 1988 would take place.

After winning 93 of the 205 National Assembly seats contested, the PPP, under the leadership of Benazir Bhutto, formed a coalition government with several smaller parties, including the Muhajir Qaumi Movement (MQM). The Islamic Democratic Alliance (IJI), a multi-party coalition led by the PML and including religious right parties such as the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), won 55 National Assembly seats.

Differing interpretations of constitutional authority, debates over the powers of the central government relative to those of the provinces, and the antagonistic relationship between the Bhutto administration and opposition governments in Punjab and Balochistan seriously impeded social and economic reform programs. Ethnic conflict, primarily in Sindh province, exacerbated these problems. A fragmentation in the governing coalition and the military's reluctance to support an apparently ineffectual and corrupt government were accompanied by a significant deterioration in law and order.

In August 1990, President Khan, citing his powers under the eighth amendment to the Constitution, dismissed the Bhutto government and dissolved the national and provincial assemblies. New elections, held in October 1990, confirmed the political ascendancy of the IJI. In addition to a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, the alliance acquired control of all four provincial parliaments and enjoyed the support of the military and of President Khan. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, as leader of the PML, the most prominent Party in the IJI, was elected prime minister by the National Assembly.

Sharif emerged as the most secure and powerful Pakistani prime minister since the mid-1970s. Under his rule, the IJI achieved several important political victories. The implementation of Sharif's economic reform program, involving privatization, deregulation, and encouragement of private sector economic growth, greatly improved Pakistan's economic performance and business climate. The passage into law in May 1991 of a Shari'a bill, providing for widespread Islamization, legitimized the IJI government among much of Pakistani society.

However, Nawaz Sharif was not able to reconcile the different objectives of the IJI's constituent parties. The largest religious party, Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), abandoned the alliance because of its perception of PML hegemony. The regime was weakened further by the military's suppression of the MQM, which had entered into a coalition with the IJI to contain PPP influence and allegations of corruption directed at Nawaz Sharif. In April 1993, President Khan, citing "maladministration, corruption, and nepotism" and espousal of political violence, dismissed the Sharif government, but the following month the Pakistan Supreme Court reinstated the National Assembly and the Nawaz Sharif government. Continued tensions between Sharif and Khan resulted in governmental gridlock and the Chief of Army Staff brokered an arrangement under which both the President and the Prime Minister resigned their offices in July 1993.

An interim government, headed by Moeen Qureshi, a former World Bank Vice President, took office with a mandate to hold national and provincial parliamentary elections in October. Despite its brief term, the Qureshi government adopted political, economic, and social reforms that generated considerable domestic support and foreign admiration.

In the October 1993 elections, the PPP won a plurality of seats in the National Assembly, and Benazir Bhutto was asked to form a government. However, because it did not acquire a majority in the National Assembly, the PPP's control of the government depended upon the continued support of numerous independent parties, particularly the PML/J. The unfavorable circumstances surrounding PPP rule--the imperative of preserving a coalition government, the formidable opposition of Nawaz Sharif's PML/N movement, and the insecure provincial administrations--presented significant difficulties for the government of Prime Minister Bhutto. However, the election of Prime Minister Bhutto's close associate, Farooq Leghari, as President in November 1993 gave her a stronger power base.

In November 1996, President Leghari dismissed the Bhutto government, charging it with corruption, mismanagement of the economy, and implication in extrajudicial killings in Karachi. Elections in February 1997 resulted in an overwhelming victory for the PML/Nawaz, and President Leghari called upon Nawaz Sharif to form a government. In March 1997, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, Sharif amended the Constitution, stripping the President of the power to dismiss the government and making his power to appoint military service chiefs and provincial governors contingent on the "advice" of the Prime Minister. Another amendment prohibited elected members from "floor crossing" or voting against party lines. The Sharif government engaged in a protracted dispute with the judiciary, culminating in the storming of the Supreme Court by ruling party loyalists and the engineered dismissal of the Chief Justice and the resignation of President Leghari in December 1997.

The new President elected by Parliament, Rafiq Tarar, was a close associate of the Prime Minister. A one-sided anti-corruption campaign was used to target opposition politicians and critics of the regime. Similarly, the government moved to restrict press criticism and ordered the arrest and beating of prominent journalists. As domestic criticism of Sharif's administration intensified, Sharif attempted to replace Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf on October 12, 1999, with a family loyalist, Director General ISI Lt. Gen. Ziauddin. Although General Musharraf was out of the country at the time, the army moved quickly to depose Sharif.

Following the October 12 ouster of the government of Prime Minister Sharif, the military-led government stated its intention to restructure the political and electoral systems. On October 14, 1999, General Musharraf declared a state of emergency and issued the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), which suspended the federal and provincial Parliaments, held the Constitution in abeyance, and designated Musharraf as Chief Executive. Musharraf appointed an eight-member National Security Council to function as Pakistan's supreme governing body, with mixed military/civilian appointees; a civilian Cabinet; and a National Reconstruction Bureau (think tank) to formulate structural reforms. On May 12, 2000, Pakistan's Supreme Court unanimously validated the October 1999 coup and granted Musharraf executive and legislative authority for 3 years from the coup date. On June 20, 2001, Musharraf named himself as president and was sworn in.

After the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked on September 11, 2001, Musharraf pledged complete cooperation with the United States in its war on terror, which included locating and shutting down terrorist training camps within its borders and cracking down on extremist groups. This policy was highly unpopular with many Pakistani citizens, and the country was, for a while, plagued by popular demonstrations. However, in a referendum held on April 30, 2002, Musharraf's presidency was extended by 5 more years.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Islamic Countries and Societies <b>HISTORY IS NOW HISTORY!</b>

[center]<b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>THINKING ALOUD : History is now history</span></b> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/center]

<b>Although all nations take liberties with history, the popular Pakistani account of events as summarised above is unique. As a subject of study, history is close to extinction

The popular Pakistani mishmash of history is a combination of narcissism and victimitude, aided by massive distortions. It reads somewhat as follows :</b>

Before the advent of Islam people lived miserable lives in ignorance and poverty. Fighting, banditry, rape, killing and revenge-killing were common, new-born girls were buried alive and everywhere it was the law of the jungle.

Islam completely transformed society, everyone lived happily and women got full rights. Even slaves were happy. Muslims ruled the world and made many great scientific discoveries. Famous Western scientists actually copied many things from Muslims.

After our golden period, something happened, somehow we lost our way. Our clever and devious enemies not only succeeded in seizing power from us, but they also copied our perfect socio-economic model to create just and prosperous societies in their own countries.

The Christian, Jewish and Hindu enemies of Islam succeeded in destroying, first, Muslim Spain, then the Mughal Empire and, finally, the Ottoman Caliphate, which were perfect examples of good government where everyone, even Hindus, enjoyed full rights and lived happily.

The Christian powers established a Jewish state, Israel, over a large part of Arab land called Falasteen. Millions of Jews now live there, on land seized from the Muslims. Some of the Muslim countries have oil, but Western companies, guarded by American troops, take all the oil from the Muslims. Of course, this is possible because some Muslim leaders are not good, they are agents of America and Israel.

In the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, the mighty Mughal Empire made great contributions to the world, such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort and Fatehpur Sikri. But the British and the Hindu leaders conspired to deprive us of everything, including education. However, under the brilliant leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam, we succeeded in achieving a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Of course, Pakistan was much smaller than was our due. For example, we did not get Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagarh. What is worse, Punjab was partitioned. We were also deprived of a land corridor to connect East and West Pakistan.

After independence, we failed to live up to the expectations of our great leader, deviated from the path of Islam and began to argue and fight among ourselves. In contrast, the Hindus across the border united (“aik platfarm per jamaa ho gai”) with the purpose of destroying our “mumlakat-e-khudadad” (god-given country).

We did make some mistakes because of our inexperience. But it was hard to not to, when the entire world, Christians, Jews and Communists alike, everyone except China, were supporting Hindu India and constantly conspiring against our Islamic country.

In 1965, the enemy attacked Pakistan without a declaration of war, under the cover of darkness. Our valiant soldiers supported by our brave people, with the blessings of Allah, not only repulsed the enemy but also taught him a lesson which he will never forget.

India begged for a ceasefire and, because of international pressure, President Ayub Khan made the mistake of signing the Tashkent Declaration. Because of heavy American and Russian pressure, he was forced to return large areas of India which our courageous troops had occupied.

Our air force shot down hundreds of enemy planes during the war. As a result, the whole world recognised that Pakistani air force pilots are the best in the world. And the same is true of Pakistani commandoes. American President Reagan once said that if he could have Pakistani pilots and commandos, he could control the whole world. Our PIA pilots are also famous in many countries.

Our great Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto resigned in protest against the Tashkent Declaration and threatened to disclose its secrets. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri died from the shock of India’s defeat. Some say he got a heart attack from joy, because he unexpectedly regained at the negotiating table what his army had lost on the battlefield. The US was Pakistan’s ally, but it secretly supported India during the war.

Being defeated on the battlefield, the wily Hindu leaders of Bharat now devised a new strategy. They began to use the Hindus of East Pakistan as well as some misguided Muslims led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman for their nefarious design to break-up Pakistan. Actually, there was also a CIA plan to separate East Pakistan from Pakistan because of the latter’s friendship with China.

Anyway, in 1971, supported by both America and Russia, Indian troops again invaded our beloved country. Our troops again put up a heroic fight in both East and West Pakistan, but they were outnumbered. In East Pakistan, the enemy was supported by the Mukti Bahini, comprising East Pakistani Hindus and some misguided Bengali Muslims. Some East Pakistanis we trusted also leaked our defence secrets to the Indians. Some people say that if Bhutto had not torn the Polish Resolution in the UN Security Council because he wanted to be President of (West) Pakistan, East Pakistan could have been saved.

But, thank God, we are now stronger than before. We even have the atom bum. Our brothers and sisters in Bangladesh are sorry for what they did and many of them would like to rejoin Pakistan, because it is a nuclear power.

We and our Afghan brothers defeated the Russian army in Afghanistan and destroyed the Soviet superpower. Some people say that if President Zia-ul Haq had not been killed by the CIA, he would also have liberated Kashmir. Afghanistan under the Taliban government was a great Islamic country, making progress in every field.

Under Saddam Hussain, Iraq was a powerful Muslim country and not afraid of America. Saddam was a great friend of the Falasteeni people and challenged Israel. He had a strong army. But when the Americans attacked, he ordered his troops not to fight. Some people say that he was an American agent.

Afraid of Muslim unity and power, the enemies of Islam hatched this great conspiracy called 9/11. Before they destroyed the World Trade Centre, they warned all the Jews not to go to work that day. Everyone knows that not a single Jew died on 9/11. Still they blamed it on Muslims and used it as a pretext to destroy the Islamic government of Afghanistan and occupy Iraq. Pakistan is next on their list. So is Iran, because it is becoming a strong Muslim country.

But, again, unlike the Christians, Hindus and Jews, Muslims unfortunately are unable to unite on one platform. We are divided into countries and nations and within countries we are divided into groups and parties. Actually, there is a hadith that Muslims will be divided into 73 sects. It is sad but true.

<b>Although all nations take liberties with history, the popular Pakistani account of events as summarized above is unique. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>And Pakistan must be the only country in the world where history itself is in danger of becoming history. As a subject of study, history is close to extinction.</span> <!--emo&Confusedtupid--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/pakee.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pakee.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Even college graduates may not know that there is such a subject as history, for it has virtually been expelled from schools and colleges. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Instead, there is a compulsory subject called ‘Pakistan Studies’, a hodgepodge of Muslim history, Islam, civics, folklore, mythology and hagiography.</span></b>

Pakistan Studies

The American Institute of Pakistan Studies (AIPS), established in 1973, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, non-partisan educational organization and a member of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers. Its mission is to encourage and support research on issues relevant to Pakistan and the promotion of scholarly exchange between the United States and Pakistan. To fulfill this mission, AIPS provides research fellowships to American researchers, administers lectureships, and sponsors academic conferences.

Course syllabi can sometimes be the most difficult to develop. Here are some examples of successful course syllabi for teaching about Pakistan for undergraduate classes:









From: "Yvette C. Rosser" <y.r.rani@mail.utexas.edu>

Subject: Abuse of History in Pakistan: Bangladesh to Kargil

<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>In mid-June I traveled from India to Pakistan during the height of the Kargil crisis. I made the trip on the Delhi-Lahore "diplomacy" bus. The rhetorical and ideological distance at the

Wagh boarder crossing between India and Pakistan was like traveling a million miles and one hundred and eighty degrees in less than fifty meters.

It was certainly an interesting time to be crossing that boarder. While in Pakistan, I felt as if I was experiencing history in the making, and the use of twisted history for nationalist justification.

I delivered a paper in Islamabad, in July arranged by the Islamabad Forum for Social Sciences. This paper discussed how Pakistani textbooks practice history by erasure and embellishment and how these distorted historical

"facts" are used to corroborate contemporary political perspectives and justify current military adventurism. I cited examples from <italic>Pakistani Studies</italic> textbooks and compared these to the headlines which

appeared in Pakistani newspapers during the Kargil crisis. My lecture was discussed in a newspaper article published in "The News," a daily in Islamabad, (quote): "Yvette drew examples from state-sponsored textbooks used in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to illustrate the appropriation of

history to reinforce national philosophy or ideology wherein historical interpretations are predetermined, unassailable, and concretized." History by erasure can have its long-term negative repercussions. In Pakistani

textbooks, which narrate the 65 War with India, Operation Gibraltar is never mentioned. Operation Gibraltar and the recent events in Kargil are products of the same processes. The mistakes made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack

of information that citizens have about the real history of their country.

During the "war-like-situation" in Kargil, a headline in a Pakistani newspaper read, "Kargil: Revenge for �71." This point of view can only be propagated by someone who is unaware of the real facts that led the Bengalis to secceed

from the western part of the country, by someone who blames the breakup of Pakistan on India Gandhi and "Hindu influences" in East Pakistan rather than on 24 years of Panjabi-perpetuated internal colonization.

While I wasout of the USA last year, I also spent six months in Bangladesh where I made several presentations. The first was in May 1999, entitled "Hegemony and Historiography: The Politics of Pedagogy." I also delivered a paper in Dhaka in late July when I returned to Bangladesh after a trip to Pakistan. That paper was called, "The Pakistani Historian and the Bangladesh War of Liberation." This talk received wide coverage in the Bangladesh

media. Here is a message sent from Dr. Ratan Lal Chakravorty, a history professor at Dhaka University. This message describes some of the news reports about that talk:

"1. The news coverage about you appears in a Daily Newspaper which is very much popular at the present moment. It�s name is the Janakanta (Voice of the People) which I am a life subscriber. On 8 August, your photographs

appeared with news in four columns of half a page. The paper appreciated you to such an extent that we had seldom received. The main topic covers your findings about the historiography and historical studies of Bangladesh

and it suggests to follow your methodology to understand the things going at present.

"2. The second also appeared in the Janakanta (Voice of the People) on 11 August, 1999, where an analytical and critical assessment of your work and objectives were done in a very sophisticated way using metaphor. The writer

appreciated you very much for speaking the truth and the reality."

Here are some observations about current events in Pakistan as they relate to the use of history in justifying current governmental and military actions and also about the psychological health of the nation:

Pakistani nationalism is characterized by ironies and contractions. Its ideology and national mythos have not been substantiated by its historical realities. In the last fifty-two years the vision or ideal of Pakistan, as a

secure homeland where the Muslims in the subcontinent could find justice and live in peace, has not been realized by the citizens. There is a shared experience of disappointment and dissatisfaction among the populace that

has not abated since the restoration of democracy in 1988, and in fact the feelings of betrayal and a collective mental depression have increased dramatically in the last decade. This intellectual fatalism and depression

about the state of affairs is not something new, as can be seen in an excerpt from the book,<italic> Breaking the Curfew, A Political Journey Through Pakistan</italic><underline>,</underline> published ten years ago by a British journalist, Emma Duncan, where she wrote, and I quote,"[. . . .] many Pakistanis I talked to seemed disappointed. It was not just the disappointment that they were not as rich as they should be or that their

children were finding it difficult to get jobs; it was a wider sense of betrayal, of having been cheated on a grant scale. The Army blamed the politicians, the politicians the Army; the businessmen blamed the civil servants, the civil

servants the politicians; everybody blamed the landlords and the foreigners, and the left and the religious fundamentalists blamed everybody except the masses.

"More than anywhere I have been - much more than India - its people worry about the state of their country. They wonder what went wrong; they fear for the future. They condemn it; they pray for it. They are involved in the

nation�s public life as passionately as in their small private dilemmas. . . "

(end quote).

In the ten years since this observation was written, the passion that the people in Pakistan have for their country has not abated, but the shared feelings of betrayal and disappointment have increased exponentially. A friend of mine who is a professor, the principal at a woman�s college in Lahore, confided that she and most of her colleagues felt not only disillusioned, but abjectly hopeless about the condition and future prospects of their beloved country. She said that she had lost all hope. She did not see that the nation could survive given the current situation and there was no alternative in sight. Here is a dynamic woman, a sincere practicing Muslim, a patriotic Pakistani whose father was an officer in the Education Core. She serves on the boards of directors of numerous institutions and works with the government to develop and implement various educational projects. She gives generously of her time and devotes herself professionally and personally to her students, her colleagues and the educational organizations of Pakistan. Yet, though she is totally committed to her country, and by nature a jolly and friendly person not prone to any type of self pity or

despondency, she is overwhelmed by feelings of loss, failure, and depression when she thinks of her beloved nation.

I was intrigued and disturbed by this expression of depression, which, regardless of Emma Duncan�s observations did not seem as profoundly obvious when I was in Pakistan two years ago. Since my dear sister working in Lahore informed me that many of her friends and colleagues also felt the same, I decided to ask the professors and scholars with whom I had scheduled interviews if they shared this feeling of depression and sorrow regarding their nation. I was astounded to find similar feeling of disempowerment coupled with a dissatisfaction which offered no solutions.

Many of the social activists and progressives with whom I spoke expressed this same helplessness while at the same time they counteract their feelings of loss by publishing journals, holding seminars and discussion groups�many

work with NGOs to develop educational opportunities for girls in rural areas or contribute their time to other altruistic and progressive endeavors. They remain active�their work belies the futility which they expressed to me.

They continue working, pouring their efforts and souls into positive activity aimed at improving the social and intellectual climate of their country, and they survive by <bold><italic>not</italic></bold> dwelling on the fact that

ultimately, they feel powerless to effect any positive change.

It distressed me that these very people who could help Pakistan the most and whose voices should be heard and heeded are the very same people who, because of their political perspectives and social critiques, are often

harassed by the authorities, denied jobs and otherwise discriminated against by the establishment. The current democratically elected government continues to make it difficult for intellectuals with alternative viewpoints to

do research and even to travel abroad, not to mention what has happened lately to prominent journalists. Several professors at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad informed me that a recent decree by the government mandated that professors must now obtain an NOC (No Objection Certificate) when planning to travel abroad even for a family vacation. One well known and respected Physics professor, Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy is a vocal critic about

Pakistani affairs and writes magazines articles and essays about issues such as corruption, the unequal availability of educational opportunities and lately about the folly and danger of the nuclear option. Recently, Dr. Hoodbhoy was

denied an NOC when he was invited to lecture in the Physics Department at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was able to leave the country only through the intervention of the Vice-chancellor of his university,

Dr. Tariq Siddique, who also taught at the Civil Service Academy and served as the education minister under Zulfikar Bhutto. Dr. Tariq Siddique is well-known for supporting his staff and helping his former students.

However, his intervention on behalf of Dr. Hoodbhoy, I was informed, risked provoking official ire. However, this type of potential threat is not something new to Tariq Siddique, since he had been dismissed from Bhutto�s cabinet for

too zealously advocating teacher empowerment and merit-based promotion.

Many scholars at the university level expressed resentment that research was discouraged and intellectuals were often seen as a threat by the establishment. They complained that mediocrity was encouraged and original research impeded. Surrounded by a completely corrupt system, which they

felt powerless to change, yet endowed with self respect and moral conscientiousness, many of these caring and intellectually brilliant individuals lamented about their hopelessness and depression regarding the condition of their nation.

As I was disturbed by this shared expression of depression, I interviewed a psychiatrist and asked him his opinion about this phenomenon. He first pointed out that the depression was a tangible reality and could be quantified by the huge increase in the number of suicides in Pakistan in the last few years. He said that there are 20 to 30 suicides per day in Pakistan which occur primarily among the young between the ages of fifteen and thirty, mostly upper-class urbanized females and newly educated rural or

newly urbanized lower middle class males. Dr. Inayat Magsi, from the Civil Hospital in Karachi, explained that most of these suicides are the result of the loss of hope for the future. But he also pointed out that the dramatic rise in clinical depression which he has observed even among citizens with ample economic opportunities can be partly attributed to the fact that even though democracy has been practiced now for over ten years, there has been a decline in the development of civil society, a death of collective vision, of enthusiasm to change the system from within, a certain resignation.

During the time of Martial Law, the iron rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, the intellectuals and socially conscious scholars, along with large segments of the common people, had something to fight against, a mission and a purpose to rid their country of authoritarian rule. Dr. Inayat Magsi pointed out that this struggle against the military government and the hope for democracy united the people with a vision which kept them enthusiastic about the future potential of their country. Once democracy was restored, the level of corruption certainly did not decrease, the practice of fomenting regionalism which was practiced by General Zia increased, promises of a better future rapidly died as the political parties fought a propaganda war for

their ascendancy instead working for the good of the country. The often disenfranchised polity was once again dismayed and depressed by the inability of their officials to focus on the needs and priorities of Pakistan. Dr.

Inayat Magsi added that now that there is no military government to rebel against, they can only blame themselves for the lack of leadership and since they are powerless to create other alternatives, they are disheartened.depressed.

Pakistan is a land that is torn by ethnic differences and is seemingly unable to achieve unity within its diversity. It was founded on the principle that Islam, as the great leveler of class and caste, was a sufficient force to tie

the Sindhis, the Pathans, and the Balouchi tribes, and also the Bengalis together with the dominant Panjabis to form a cohesive and stable national identity which would supersede regional loyalties and ethnicities. Through the years, this mission to create a strong centrally controlled government has been pursued by various methods including realignment of political associations between its minority groups, usually based more on gains for provincial party bosses than nation cohesion, and by the use of military coercion, which as in the case of the Bengali majority, resulted in the split up of the original country.

Even today the central government operates under the assumption that Pakistan is a unitary entity, though the rhetorical idea of "One Unit" was only abandoned immediately before the Bangladesh war of liberation. The

Pakistani military and bureaucracy are still grappling with the problems that the contradictions inherent in the Ideology of Pakistan continue to create within the varied cultural landscape of the nation.

The powers at the center, usually more intent at retaining the profitable reins on the government, are inevitably unable to make equitable policies which can reverse the decentralized loyalties nor reconcile these tendencies with the imperatives of a highly centralized state apparatus. As Feroz Ahmed in his book <italic>Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan</italic>, published by Oxford University Press in 1999, wrote, "The state and its ideologues have steadfastly refused to recognize the fact that these regions are not merely chunks of territory with different names but areas which were historically inhabited by peoples who had different languages and cultures, and even states of their own. This official and intellectual denial has, no doubt, contributed to the progressive deterioration of inter-group relations, weakened societies cohesiveness, and undermined the state�s capacity to forge security and sustain development." (end quote)

Denial and erasure are the primary tools of historiography as it is officially practiced in Pakistan. There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the

Ideology of Pakistan�devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation.

There is no other correct way to view the historical record. It is, after all, since the time of General Zia-ul Haq, a capital crime to talk against the "Ideology of Pakistan."

According to A.H. Nayyar from Quaid-e-Azam University, "What is important in the exercise is the faithful transmission, without any criticism or re-evaluation, of the particular view of the past which is implicit in the

coming to fruition of the �Pakistan Ideology.�" Rahat Saeed of the Irtiqa Institute of Social Sciences in Karachi explains that school level history teachers are often aware that what they are teaching in their Pakistani Studies classes is at best contradictory and often quite incorrect. They usually do not attempt to explain the "real" history regarding such events as the civil war in 1971, because to do so might jeopardize their jobs, and, as Rahat explains, the teachers are afraid "to corrupt their students with the truth."

In contemporary Pakistani textbooks the historical narrative is based on the Two Nation Theory. The story of the nation begins with the advent of Islam when Mohammed-bin-Qazm arrived in Sindh followed by Mahmud of Ghazni storming through the Khyber Pass, 16 times, bringing the Light of Islam to the infidels who converted en mass to escape the evil domination of the cruel Brahmins. Reviewing a selection of textbooks published since 1972 in Pakistan will verify the assumption that there is little or no discussion of the ancient cultures that have flowered in the land that is now Pakistan, such as Taxila and Mohenjo-Daro, though this lack seems to have been partly addressed in the very recent editions of several history textbooks published for Oxford-Cambridge elite schools. In most textbooks, any mention of Hinduism is inevitably accompanied by derogatory critiques, and none of the greatness of Indic civilization is considered�not even the success of Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated, or at least frightened the invading army of Alexander the Great at the banks of the Beas River where it flows through the land that is now called Pakistan. These events are deemed meaningless since they are not about Muslim heroes. There is an elision in time between the moment Islam first arrived in Sindh and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

This shortsighted approach to historiography was not always the case.

Up until 1972, the history textbooks included much more elaborate sections on the history of the subcontinent, while adopting the colonial frame of periodization�the books described the Hindu Period, The Muslim Period and

the British Period. History textbooks, such as <italic>Indo Pak History, Part 1</italic> published in 1951, included chapters with titles such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata Era, Aryans� Religion and Educational Literature, the Caste System, Jainism and Buddhism, Invasions of Iranians and Greeks, Chandra Gupta Maurya, Maharaja Ashok, Maharaja Kaniska, The Gupta Family, Maharaja Harish, New Era of Hinduism, The Era of Rajputs. This same basic table of contents, which also included the history of Islam, was prevalent in textbooks until post 1971. A textbook published in 1964, for use at a military academy in Abbottabad included similar chapters, and even had a chapter entitled, Mahatma Gandhi, Man of Peace. This same edition of this textbooks was republished without any changes until 1971. It can therefore be seen that Pakistani textbooks were not always estranged from their associations with South Asian history and culture. but beginning with the Bhutto years and accelerating under the Islamized tutelage of General Zia-ul

Haq, not only has the history of the subcontinent been discarded, but it has been vilified and mocked and transformed into the evil other, a measure of what Pakistan is not. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto�s influence on the textbooks was profound�he was furious at India, whom he blamed for the break-up of the country. Though ironically, his mother was a Hindu, a natch-girl (dancer) who had converted to Islam in order to marry his wealthy father, Bhutto vehemently launched an anti-Indian campaign with vituperative anti-Hindu rhetoric. This legacy of his orchestrated hatred is still the basis of Pakistani historical narratives where Gandhi is now usually referred to as a "conniving bania."

Much of the historical discourse and social analysis in Pakistan is based on negative methodologies which seek to justify Pakistan�s failures and shortcomings by pointing out similar problems that also exist in neighboring

India. Instead of focusing their academic lens on the Pakistani situation, and be the view positive or negative, analyzing what is seen <italic>within</italic> their nation, scholars repeatedly use the tact of dismissing problems in Pakistan by discussions of parallel problems in India.

Within this paradigm, Pakistani scholarship is defined by placing the country�s problems in a less negative light in comparison to India�s problems.

This could be called the theory of self justification, but more aptly results in self negation. A vivid example of this methodology can be found in the book by Akbar S. Ahmed, <italic>Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: the Search for Saladin</italic>. It is one of a great number of books published in Pakistan during 1997. Many of these books published in honor of Pakistan�s fiftieth anniversary, such as Feroz Ahmed�s <italic>Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan, </italic>and others such as the work by the linguist, Dr. Tariq Rehman, represent an effort to look objectively at topics such as Pakistani nation-building, society, cultural myths, domestic and foreign policy. Prior to this golden jubilee moment of self analysis, most books that graced the OUP or Vanguard shelves were basically biased and very much situated in the straight jacket of the two nation theory. This is not to criticize their nationalist orientation, all nations write nationalist histories, but an observation that historical discourse in Pakistan is dominated by negative images of India and Hinduism. In general, the majority of books in the field

of the social sciences written in Pakistan have lacked theoretical basis and are short on angst and verve, though perhaps books by ex-pats, such as Mustfa Pasha are usually more circumspect. As Dr. Rahat in Karachi joked, "In Pakistan, social scientists are more social than cientific!" However, since 1997, there have been several books written about the Bangladesh experience, such as the recent book by Ahmad Saleem, <italic>Blood Beaten Track</italic>, which does not lay the blame squarely in Indira Gandhi�s lap, for conspiring to "Sink the Two Nation theory in the Bay of Bengal".

In Akbar S. Ahmed�s book, <italic>Search for Saladin,</italic> if judged by its cover, the fairly post modern title gives the impression that perhaps the book would be theoretically based and hopefully less biased than the standard fare offered up as state sponsored Pakistani scholarship. In this regard the book was a disappointment. Ahmed is a well know Pakistani scholar, and though a civil servant and therefore perhaps prone to rubbery research results stretching to accommodate the reigning regime, he is a fellow at Selwyn College, Cambridge and would probably get a wider reading audience in the West. Unfortunately, in this book he has fallen once again into the prevailing discourse of Pakistani historians who define their nation in the negative, in terms of what it is not. "We are not Hindus. We are not Indians. We will not be ruled by the Hindus. We do not practice the evil caste system. We do not mistreat our minorities. We do not attack our neighbors." Through the decades Pakistani writers have used this discourse of negation consistently describing their nation in contrast to Hindu India�s other. There have been far too few examples of reflexivity, inward looking analysis.

In this book by Ahmed, much of the discussion centers on communalism in India. He refers to books by Veena Das, Asghar Ali Engineer, Sarvepalli Gopal, Kumari Jayawardena, T.N. Madan, Ashish Nandy, Khushwant Singh, etc. He uses these Indian authors� work to prove his points about the sufferings of minorities in India, couched in the usual anti-Indian/Pakistani-centric rhetoric. He never pauses to question why there are so many open and frank books about the plight of minorities in India and there are very few such books about the problems faced by minorities in Pakistan. He doesn�t mention the bishop who blew his brains out on the city hall steps to protest continuing officially sanctioned harassment of the Christian community in Pakistan and the death sentence metted out to an adolescent from the Christian community for his alleged blasphemy. Akbar S. Ahmed fails to mention that Hindus and other minorities are delegated to second class citizens through their prejudicial voting system and blasphemy laws. Or that women are also second class citizens living under the burden of Hudood laws. He can not see the problems in his own nation, for he is too busy looking for problems in India. Once again, Pakistan is not looking at Pakistan for its own meaning, it is looking to India to justify its own failings.

Akbar dwells extensively on rape during the Bombay riots of 1993, citing the suffering in several pages, but he dismisses rape by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh with less than one sentence. These types of examples are to be

found throughout the book. It must be said that some of the most exciting and theoretically based and insightful scholarship in Pakistan is coming from the small group of feminist intellectuals associated with such centers as Simorgh, ASR, and Sahe in Lahore.

Discourses about Islam and its relationship to the Ideology of Pakistan make up the majority of <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks, which dwell at length on how Islam will create a fair and just nation,"In the eyes of a Muslim all human beings are equal and there is no distinction based on race or colour. . . The rich or poor [are] all equal before law. A virtuous and pious man has precedence over others before Allah."

The Pakistan Studies textbook goes on to say, "Namaz prevents a Muslim from indulging in immoral and indecent acts." And regarding issues of justice, the 1999 edition of this <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbook written

by Rabbani and Sayyid which is in wide usage in Pakistan writes,

"On official level (sic) all the officers and officials must perform their duties justly, i.e., they should be honest, impartial and devoted. They should keep in view betterment of common people and should not act in a manner which may infringe the rights of others or may cause inconvenience to others." How does this discourse tally with the tales that the students have heard about corruption and the hassles their parents have endured simply to pay a bill or collect a refund? How do they rectify their cognitive dissonance when they hear about elected officials and wealthy landholders and industrialists buying off a court case lodged against them, or simply not charged for known crimes, with statements from their textbooks such as, "Every one should be equal before law and the law should be applied without any distinction or discrimination. [. . . ] Islam does not approve that certain individuals may be considered above law. The textbook goes on to state that "The Holy Prophet (PBUH) says that a nation which deviates from justice <italic>invites its doom and destruction"</italic> (emphasis mine).

With such a huge disparity between the ideal and the real, no wonder there is a great deal of fatalism and depression among the educated citizens and the school going youths concerning the state of the nation in Pakistan.

Further compounding the students� distress and distancing them from either their religion or their nation-state, or both, are the contradictions found in this same <italic>Pakistani Studies</italic> book. On page 63 is the

statement that "the enforcement of Islamic principles . . . does not approve dictatorship or the rule of man over man." Compared with the reality unfolding a few paragraphs later when the student is told that, "General Muhammad Ayub Khan captured power and abrogated the constitution of 1956 [. . . .] dissolved the assemblies and ran the affairs of the country under Martial Law without any constitution.<smaller><smaller><smaller> "</smaller></smaller></smaller>Since nearly half of this textbook is dedicated to chapters with such titles as Islamization Under Zia, Hindrances to Islamization, and Complete Islamization is Our Goal, the other themes and events in the history and culture of Pakistan are judged vis-a-vis their relationship and support of complete Islamization. Within this rhetoric are found dire warnings that Islam should be applied severely so that it can guard against degenerate Western influences, yet a few pages later the text encourages the students to embrace Western technological innovations in order to modernize the country. One part of the book complains that Muslims in British India lost out on economic opportunities because conservative religious forces rejected western education yet a few pages later the authors are telling the students to use Islam to fend off Western influences and lauding the efforts of conservative clerics who are the last hope of protecting the country by the implementation of the Shari-a Law. This seems to be schizophrenic reasoning.

Non-Muslim cultural influences are often blamed for regional allegiances, such as in this discussion in Dr. Mohammed Sarwar�s <italic>Pakistani Studies</italic> book, which states that, "At present a particular segment, in

the guise of modernization and progressive activity, has taken the unholy task of damaging our cultural heritage. Certain elements aim at the promotion of cultures with the intention to enhance regionalism and provincialism and thereby damage national integration."

Once again progressive forces and regional cultural affinities are deemed anti-Pakistani and thereby inherently anti-Islam. This is the same stance that is used in describing the emergence of Bangladesh. This textbook goes

on to state that "It is in the interest of national solidarity that such aspects of culture should be promoted as reflect affinity among the people of the provinces." This type of discourse seems to deny the impetus and urges of the cultural expressions of the Sindhis, the Pathans and the Balouchis, instead of valuing them as part of the whole, these regional cultural tendencies are seen as a threat to the nation, and Islam is employed to ameliorate these dangerous cultural differences.

At the same time this textbook claims that Islam sees no differences and promotes unity while it also discriminates between Muslims and nonbelievers. For example, on page 120 the author states, "The Islamic state, of course, discriminates between Muslim citizens and religious minorities and preserves their separate entity. Islam does not conceal the realities in the guise of artificialities or hypocrisy. By recognizing their distinct entity, Islamic state affords better protection to its religious minorities. Despite the fact that the role of certain religious minorities, especially the Hindus in East Pakistan, had not been praiseworthy, Pakistan ensured full protection to their rights under the Constitution. Rather the Hindu Community enjoyed privileged position in East Pakistan by virtue of is effective control over the economy and the media. It is to be noted that the Hindu representatives in the 1st Constituent Assembly of Pakistan employed delaying tactics in Constitution-making."

That this claim is spurious as can be seen in the recent book by Allen McGrath, published by OUP, <italic>The Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan</italic>, in which the author, a lawyer, analyzes the efforts at constitution making in the first decade after independence before Iskandar Mizra dissolved the National Assembly. In the McGrath book the productive role D.N. Dutt played in constitution making is mentioned. Yet, in Pakistan Studies textbooks, the anti-Hindu point of view and the vilification of the Hindu community of East Pakistan are the standard orientation. In this particular version of Pakistani history, which is the official version, General Zia-ul-Haq is portrayed as someone who, "took concrete steps in the direction of Islamization." He is often seen as pious and perhaps stitching caps alongside Aurangzeb. Though Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is generally criticized in the textbooks, General Zia usually escapes most criticism though he was the most cruel and autocratic of the military rulers who usurped the political process in Pakistan. Each time that martial law was declared in Pakistan, and the constitution aborted, the textbook by Dr. Sarwar describes it as an inevitable action stimulated by the rise of unIslamic forces. For example,

"The political leadership did not come up to the expectations and lacked commitment to Islamic objectives. Moreover, the civil service had not undergone socialization process commensurate with Islamic teachings.

Bureaucratic elite had Western orientation with secular approach to all national issues. [. . . ] the result was political instability and chaos paving the way for the intervention of military and the imposition of Martial Law. "

In the next paragraph, however, Ayub Khan is accused of imposing unIslamic laws, especially family laws, and the author claims that it was Ayub�s secular outlook which ultimately brought about his decline.

General Zia, on the other hand, is described on page 138,

"During the period under Zia�s regime, social life developed a leaning towards simplicity. Due respect and reverence to religious people was accorded. The government patronized the religious institutions and liberally donated funds."

This textbook, and many like it, claim that there is a "network ofconspiracies and intrigues" which are threatening the "Muslim world in the guise of elimination of militancy and fundamentalism." In this treatment Pakistan takes credit for the fall of the Soviet Union and lays claim to have created a situation in the modern world where Islamic revolutions can flourish and the vacuum left by the fall of the USSR will "be filled by the world of Islam." This textbook continues by saying that "The Western world has full perception of this phenomena, [which] accounts for the development of reactionary trends in that civilization." Concluding this section under the title Global Changes, the author seems to be getting ready for Samuel Huntingtons Clash of Civilizations when he writes,

"The Muslim world has full capabilities to face the Western challenges provided Muslims are equipped with self-awareness and channelize their collective efforts for the well being of the Muslim Ummah. All evidences substantiate Muslim optimism indicating that the next century will glorify Islamic revolution with Pakistan performing a pivotal role." (page 146)

<italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks are full of inherent contradictions. One page the book brags about the modern banking system, and another page complains that interest is unIslamic. There is also a certain amount of self-loathing written into the <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks, and the politicians are depicted as inept and corrupt and the industrialists are described as pursuing "personal benefit even at the cost of national interest." Bouncing between the poles of conspiracy theory and threat from within, the textbooks portray Pakistan as a victim of Western ideological hegemony, and threatened by the perpetual Machiavellian intentions of India�s military and espionage machine, together with the internal failure of its politicians to effectively govern the country coupled with the fact that the economy is in the hands of a totally corrupt class of elite business interests who have only enriched themselves at the cost of the development of the nation. All of these failures and conspiracies could, according to the rhetoric in the textbooks, be countered by the application of more strictly Islamic practices. In fact, while I was in Pakistan recently, I spoke to several well placed individuals who told me that they would welcome a Taliban type government in Pakistan so that the country could finally achieve its birth right as a truly Islamic nation. Though this is certainly not a majority opinion, there is a large segment of society who thinks along this line. Perhaps the choice of this alternative Taliban vision for Pakistan is also a result of those feelings of helplessness discussed previously, perhaps between the conspiracies and corruption, they see no alternative.

When the textbooks and the clerics cry conspiracy and the majority of the newspapers, particularly the Urdu press, misinform or disinform the people, the tendency for the Pakistanis to feel betrayed and persecuted is not surprising. During the 71 War, the newspapers in Pakistan told nothing of the violence of the military crack down nor did they keep the people informed of the deteriorating strategic situation. The role of the Mukti Bahini was practically unknown in Pakistan, and when defeat finally came, it came as a devastating and unexpected shock that could only be explained by Indira Gandhi�s lies and treachery. It is no wonder that during and in the aftermath of the Kargil crisis, newspapers often ran stories which called the occupation of the heights above Kargil as Pakistan�s revenge for 1971. There has historically been a lack of information available to the citizens of Pakistan both in the 65 War and during the Bangladesh War of Independence. Yet that split-up of the nation, and the creation of Bangladesh is a potent

symbol in Pakistan as evidenced by one headline that ran last summer in "The News", which said, "Nawaz Shariff�s Policies are Turning Sindh into Another Bangladesh."

During the recent war-like situation at the Line of Control in Kashmir, the government claimed again and again that the muhajideen were not physically supported by Pakistan, that they were indigenous Kashmiri freedom fighters. However, the presence of satellite television, the internet, and newspapers which are now more connected to international media sources, prevented the usual propaganda machine of the government from keeping all the facts from the people. Perhaps there is at least one positive outcome of the tragic Kargil crisis where hundreds of young men lost their lives, in the aftermath of the crisis there was a dramatic outpouring of newspaper and magazine articles which attempted to analyze the brinkmanship from various angles.

This new found critical reflexivity is a positive development and though some of the essays in Pakistani newspapers called for the military to take over the government in the wake of Nawaz Shariff�s sell out to the imperialist Clinton, most of the discussions were more circumspect and many authors looked at the Kargil debacle through a lens of history, trying to understand the cause of Pakistan�s repeated failures arising from military intervention. Many of the observations made during and after the Kargil situation, such as the complete inadequacy of Pakistani international diplomacy, are interestingly also cited in <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> textbooks regarding Indias perceived manipulation of world opinion during the 71 war and Pakistans inability to counter it.

Pakistani textbooks are particularly prone to a historical narrative manipulated by omission. According to Avril Powell, professor of history at the University of London, "The �recasting� of Pakistani history [has been] used to �endow the nation with a historic destiny.�"

Textbooks in Pakistan are the domain of distorted politics which have victimized the Social Studies curriculum. History by erasure can have its long-term negative repercussions. An example of this is the manner in which the Indo-Pak War of 1965 is discussed in Pakistani textbooks. In standard

narrations of the 65 War manufactured for students and the general public, there is no mention of Operation Gibraltar, even thirty years after the event.

In fact, many university level history professors whom I interviewed had never heard of Operation Gibraltar and the repercussions of that ill-planned military adventurism, which resulted in India�s attack on Lahore. In Pakistani textbooks the story is told that the Indian army, unprovoked and inexplicably attacked Lahore and that one Pakistani jawan equals ten Indian soldiers, who, upon seeing the fierce Pakistanis, drop their banduks and run away. Many people in Pakistan still think like this, and several mentioned this assumed cowardice of the Indian army in recent discussions regarding the war-like situation in Kargil. The nation is elated by the valiant victories on the battlefield, as reported in the newspapers, then shocked and dismayed when their country is humiliated at the negotiating table. Because they were not fully informed about the adventurism and brinkmanship of their military, they can only feel betrayed that somehow the Pakistani political leaders "grabbed defeat from the jaws of military victory."

It is interesting to note in this context an episode from the book by Akbar S. Ahmed in which he tells of a personal conversation with General Niazi, who according to Ahmed, claimed that he was planning to "cross into India and

march up the Ganges and capture Delhi and thus link up with Pakistan." Niazi told Ahmed that "This will be the corridor that will link East with West Pakistan. It was a corridor that the Quaid-e-Azam demanded and I will obtain it by force of arms." This absurd reasoning can still be seen among those who were battling the Indian army in Kargil. In a recent newspaper article published in The News, a commander of the Pakistani based muhajideen told the reporter that their plan was first to take "Kargil, then Srinagar, then march victorious into Delhi."

Operation Gibraltar, the recent debacle in Kargil, and especially the tragic lessons that could have been learned from the emergence of Bangladesh are products of the same myopic processes. As mentioned earlier, the mistakes made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack of information that citizens have about the real history of their country. How similar the public knowledge and their naive response, how similar the disinformation pumped out by the government, and how sad the loss of life, the continued hostilities, the inability or unwillingness to negotiate diplomatically. Hegel and Toynbee among others, have warned that nations do not learn from their history.

There is, however, significant merit to the argument that access to information about past mistakes and successes and their consequences can guide decision makers and citizens as they chart a course into the next millennium between diplomacy and disaster.

</fontfamily> If you like, I can send more messages about my adventures in South Asia. I was in Bangladesh supported by a fellowship from the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies and I was in Pakistan funded by the American Institute of Pakistan Studies. I will be returning to Pakistan in November and December and plan to travel in interior Sindh to meet with scholar and intellectuals there, and interview them concerning their perspectives about the writing of history in Pakistan. Is anyone on this list can be of some assistance to me while I am there, I would be most grateful.

<fontfamily><param>Palatino</param> The recent series of translations submitted to this list-serve by Dr. Gul Agha concerning the history of the invasion of Sindh by the Arabs is in direct contrast to how these events are treated in the <italic>Pakistan Studies</italic> syllabus which devotes considerable space to Muhammad-bin-Qasim who is hailed for bringing Islam to the subcontinent. In <italic>Social Studies For Class VI</italic>, published by the Sindh Textbooks Board, Jamshoro, April 1997 the story of the Arabs arrival in Sindh is narrated as the first moment of Pakistan with the glorious ascendancy of Islam. This textbook tells the young sixth class school children of Sindh that, "The Muslims knew that the people of South

Asia were infidels and they kept thousands of idols in their temples." The Sindhi king, Raja Dahir, is described as cruel and despotic. "The non-Brahmans who were tired of the cruelties of Raja Dahir, joined hands with Muhammad-bin-Qasim because of his good treatment." According to this historical orientation, The conquest of Sindh opened a new chapter in the history of South Asia. "Muslims had ever lasting effects on their existence in the region. . .

For the first time the people of Sindh were introduced to Islam, its political system and way of the government. The people here had seenonly the atrocities of the Hindus. . . . The people of Sindh were so much impressed by the benevolence of Muslims that they regarded Muhammad-bin-Qasim as their savior. . . . Muhammad-bin-Qasim stayed inSindh for over three years.

On his departure from Sindh, the local people were overwhelmed with grief.<smaller><smaller><smaller>"

</smaller></smaller></smaller>When I visited Hyderabad, Sindh in 1997, I discussed the contents of this textbook with local Sindhis, who assured me that they told their children an alternative version of this story. They informed me that any good Sindhi knows that "in several cities in ancient Sindh, Muhammad-bin-Qasim beheaded every male over the age of eighteen and that he sent tens of thousands of Sindhi women to the harems of the Abbassid Dynasty." They also explained that impact of these textbooks was minimal because, though the back of the book indicated that 20,000 copies were supposedly printed annually, that, because of corruption, "fewer than 10,000 were ever printed and distributed."

I apologize for the length of this message and hope it is of interest.

Thank you for your kind attention and for any suggestions you may offer.

All the best,


Yvette C. Rosser

Ph.D. Candidate Department of Curriculum and Instruction (ABD)

M.A. Department of Asian Studies

B.A. (with honors) Department of Oriental and African Languages and


The University of Texas at Austin
<b>New middle school curriculum in Pak to include chapters on Hinduism</b>

New middle school curriculum in Pak to include chapters on Hinduism

Islamabad, Jan 10 (ANI): The Pakistan government has decided to include brief lessons about religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism in the revised national curriculum for history subject for middle school students.

The students in classes VI to VIII would also be provided information about various civilisations of South Asia, starting from the Indus Valley civilisation.

The education ministry has reportedly sent curriculum guidelines to the provincial textbook boards for formulation of books in detail for such classes.
The curriculum's main objective is to create awareness about various ancient civilisations which developed over centuries in South Asia, especially in areas now constituting Pakistan, reported the Dawn.

The curriculum starts with highlighting the importance of the discipline of history. For class VI, it covers the period from Indus Valley civilisation to the end of the Delhi Sultanate (1,500BC to 1,526AD). In particular, it focuses on the civilisation and social advancements made by the people of Mohenjodaro and Harappa.</b>

The second chapter for class VI will focus on social, economic and religious systems of that time period in which salient features of Hinduism will be discussed besides explaining how Buddhism and Jainism differ from Hinduism. The next two chapters will be on the arrival of Arabs and the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim to Mahmud of Ghazna, Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri and the Slave, Khilji, Tughlaq and Lodhi dynasties and their subsequent decline.

Students of class VI will also be learning about major Sufi orders and saints, and their contribution in the spread of Islam followed by the evolution of Indo-Muslim culture with particular reference to their contribution in arts, science and architecture.

The curriculum for the class VII will be focusing on the Mughal Empire; its foundation, consolidation contribution and disintegration (1526-1857). Starting with factors which contributed to the conquest of India by Babur, learning outcomes also include administrative reforms of Akbar, poetry, miniature, painting and music of Nur Jehan, Jehangir's passion for dispensation of justice, and Shah Jahan's contribution to culture and architecture. (ANI)


Distorting history
The reservations expressed in the National Assembly by several members of the MMA against the inclusion of content related to South Asia's pre-Islamic history, particularly chapters related to Hinduism and Buddhism, is outrageous to say the least. The view taken by the MMA MPs that this is being done as part of some conspiracy to 'secularise' the country is untenable and itself conspiratorial. Of course, the implication by labelling all this as part of a so-called secular agenda is to equate it -- as the religious right does without fear of being corrected -- with 'la deeni'. This wilfully distorts the meaning of secular in the Pakistani context by equating it with godliness which it is not. In the peculiar Pakistani situation those who advocate secular views are not to be termed atheists or anti-religionists. In fact what they do propose or wish to see is a government/state that respects the rights of its citizens without regard to their religious beliefs and which treats them all equally before the law.

The problem with the religious right, particularly the views held by the MMA members of parliament, is not so much that what they believe in is retrogressive and deserves to be in the Dark Ages but rather that they insist on foisting their obscurantist and prejudiced worldview on everyone else. One must commend the government MPs who tried to reason with the MMA MPs on this issue by rightly trying to tell them that students need to be told of all the history of the region that they live in and that this should include pre-Islamic history as well. The speaker of the National Assembly is reported to have tried to reason with the MMA MPs too but inexplicably caved into their pressure and referred the matter to a parliamentary committee -- which means that the MMA will have an another opportunity to stoke it.

As for the government, one unequivocally applauds this move to expand the content of history that is taught to students in the country. Regrettably, for quite some time -- and taken to an extreme during General Zia's extremely debilitating years in power -- <span style='color:red'>the history that has been taught to students in the mainstream system of education has been one-sided, warped, biased and extremely selective. It glosses over the very rich period of the Indus civilisation and how it affected and shaped the region that Pakistanis live in today, makes little or no mention of the flowering of Buddhism in parts of what are today northern Pakistan and ignores the fact that Hindu kings also ruled over the region. After all, these civilisations are very much a part of our history, whether the MMA likes it or not. It is not Hindu history, as the MMA would have it, but Pakistani, and, in fact, world history. If Hinduism and Buddhism, or, for that matter, any other culture or religion, are a part of this history, then they, too, must be covered. </span>Moreover, one cannot understand why the MMA thinks that learning about the ancient history of Pakistan will take away from the history of Islam.

Students of history should be told all these facts and should not be fed selective knowledge. That is one reason why the mainstream system of education has more often than not produced graduates who do not know much about the history of their own region. Not only that, they tend not to be well-rounded individuals and have low tolerance levels for those who come from a religion or faith different from theirs. Besides, the way that history is taught normally -- and Pakistan Studies as well -- is that students are fed propaganda to hate India and Hindus in general and end up having a feeling of superiority that is based less on fact and more on the disinformation that is fed to them. <b>Of course, there is much that is wrong with India but there is much that is good and teaching only one side is not to teach history but spread disinformation and hate.</b> Besides, there is much wrong with Pakistani society as well so it's not a particularly good policy to teach students a history which tells them that their society and culture is the best in the world -- certainly better than that of the 'non-believers'. The government will hopefully disregard the hue and cry raised by the MMA and carry on with this meaningful curriculum reform. If done in a proper manner, then maybe our future generations will accord our ancient cultural heritage and sites like Moenjodaro and Harappa the respect that they deserve.

Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity
The Search for Saladin

Read the Review

Understanding Jinnah

God cannot alter the past, but historians can.

(Samuel Butler)

Islam gave the Muslims of India a sense of identity; dynasties like the Mughals gave them territory; poets like Allama Iqbal gave them a sense of destiny. Jinnah's towering stature derives from the fact that, by leading the Pakistan movement and creating the state of Pakistan, he gave them all three. For the Pakistanis he is simply the Quaid-i-Azam or the Great Leader. Whatever their political affiliation, they believe there is no one quite like him.

Jinnah: a life

Mohammed Ali Jinnah was born to an ordinary if comfortable household in Karachi, not far from where Islam first came to the Indian subcontinent in AD 711 in the person of the young Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim. However, Jinnah's date of birth -- 25 December 1876 -- and place of birth are presently under academic dispute.

Just before Jinnah's birth his father, Jinnahbhai Poonja, had moved from Gujarat to Karachi. Significantly, Jinnah's father was born in 1857 -- at the end of one kind of Muslim history, with the failed uprisings in Delhi -- and died in 1901 (F. Jinnah 1987: vii).

Jinnah's family traced its descent from Iran and reflected Shia, Sunni and Ismaili influences; some of the family names -- Valji, Manbai and Nathoo -- were even 'akin to Hindu names' (F. Jinnah 1987: 50). Such things mattered in a Muslim society conscious of underlining its non-Indian origins, a society where people gained status through family names such as Sayyed and Qureshi (suggesting Arab descent), Ispahani (Iran) and Durrani (Afghanistan). Another source has a different explanation of Jinnah's origins. Mr Jinnah, according to a Pakistani author, said that his male ancestor was a Rajput from Sahiwal in the Punjab who had married into the Ismaili Khojas and settled in Kathiawar (Beg 1986: 888). Although born into a Khoja (from khwaja or 'noble') family who were disciples of the Ismaili Aga Khan, Jinnah moved towards the Sunni sect early in life. There is evidence later, given by his relatives and associates in court, to establish that he was firmly a Sunni Muslim by the end of his life (Merchant 1990).

One of eight children, young Jinnah was educated in the Sind Madrasatul Islam and the Christian Missionary Society High School in Karachi. Shortly before he was sent to London in 1893 to join Graham's Shipping and Trading Company, which did business with Jinnah's father in Karachi, he was married to Emibai, a distant relative (F. Jinnah 1987: 61). It could be described as a traditional Asian marriage -- the groom barely 16 years old and the bride a mere child. Emibai died shortly after Jinnah left for London; Jinnah barely knew her. But another death, that of his beloved mother, devastated him (ibid.).

Jinnah asserted his independence by making two important personal decisions. Within months of his arrival he left the business firm to join Lincoln's Inn and study law. In 1894 he changed his name by deed poll, dropping the 'bhai' from his surname. Not yet 20 years old, in 1896 he became the youngest Indian to pass. As a barrister, in his bearing, dress and delivery Jinnah cultivated a sense of theatre which would stand him in good stead in the future.

It has been said that Jinnah chose Lincoln's Inn because he saw the Prophet's name at the entrance. I went to Lincoln's Inn looking for the name on the gate, but there is no such gate nor any names. There is, however, a gigantic mural covering one entire wall in the main dining hall of Lincoln's Inn. Painted on it are some of the most influential lawgivers of history, like Moses and, indeed, the holy Prophet of Islam, who is shown in a green turban and green robes. A key at the bottom of the painting matches the names to the persons in the picture. Jinnah, I suspect, was not deliberately concealing the memory of his youth but recalling an association with the Inn of Court half a century after it had taken place. He had remembered there was a link, a genuine appreciation of Islam. Had those who have written about Jinnah's recollection bothered to visit Lincoln's Inn the mystery would have been solved. However, knowledge of the pictorial depiction of the holy Prophet would certainly spark protests; demands from the active British Muslim community for the removal of the painting would be heard in the UK.

In London Jinnah had discovered a passion for nationalist politics and had assisted Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Indian Member of Parliament. During the campaign he became acutely aware of racial prejudice, but he returned to India to practise law at the Bombay Bar in 1896 after a brief stopover in Karachi. He was then the only Muslim barrister in Bombay (see plate 1).

Jinnah was a typical Indian nationalist at the turn of the century, aiming to get rid of the British from the subcontinent as fast as possible. He adopted two strategies: one was to try to operate within the British system; the other was to work for a united front of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsees against the British. He succeeded to an extent in both.

Jinnah's conduct reflected the prickly Indian expression of independence. On one occasion in Bombay, when Jinnah was arguing a case in court, the British presiding judge interrupted him several times, exclaiming, 'Rubbish.' Jinnah responded: 'Your honour, nothing but rubbish has passed your mouth all morning.' Sir Charles Ollivant, judicial member of the Bombay provincial government, was so impressed by Jinnah that in 1901 he offered him permanent employment at 1,500 rupees a month. Jinna declined, saying he would soon earn that amount in a day. Not too long afterwards he proved himself correct.

Stories like these added to Jinnah's reputation as an arrogant nationalist. His attitude towards the British may be explained culturally as well as temperamentally. He was not part of the cultural tradition of the United Provinces (UP) which had revolved around the imperial Mughal court based in Delhi and which smoothly transferred to the British after they moved up from Calcutta. Exaggerated courtesy, hyperbole, dissimulation, long and low bows, salaams that touched the forehead repeatedly -- these marked the deference of courtiers to imperial authority. Even Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan, one of the most illustrious champions of the Muslim renaissance in the late nineteenth century, came from a family that had served the Mughals, but had readily transferred his loyalties to the British.

Jinnah often antagonized his British superiors. Yet he was clever enough consciously to remain within the boundaries, pushing as far as he could but not allowing his opponents to penalize him on a point of law. In short he learned to use British law skilfully against the British.

At several points in his long career, Jinnah was threatened by the British with imprisonment on sedition charges for speaking in favour of Indian home rule or rights. He was frozen out by those British officials who wished their natives to be more deferential. For example, Lord Willingdon, Viceroy of India in 1931-6, did not take to him, and even the gruff but kindly Lord Wavell, Viceroy in 1943-7, was made to feel uncomfortable by Jinnah's clear-minded advocacy of the Muslims, even though he recognized the justice of Jinnah's arguments. The last Viceroy, however, Lord Mountbatten, could not cope with what he regarded as Jinnah's arrogance and haughtiness, preferring the natives to be more friendly and pliant.

Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity

On his return from England in 1896, Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress. In 1906 he attended the Calcutta session as secretary to Dadabhai Naoroji, who was now president of Congress. One of his patrons and supporters, G. K. Gokhale, a distinguished Brahmin, called him 'the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity'. He was correct. When Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the Hindu nationalist, was being tried by the British on sedition charges in 1908 he asked Jinnah to represent him.

On 25 January 1910 Jinnah took his seat as the 'Muslim member from Bombay' on the sixty-man Legislative Council of India in Delhi. Any illusions the Viceroy, Lord Minto, may have harboured about the young Westernized lawyer as a potential ally were soon laid to rest. When Minto reprimanded Jinnah for using the words 'harsh and cruel' in describing the treatment of the Indians in South Africa, Jinnah replied: 'My Lord! I should feel much inclined to use much stronger language. But I am fully aware of the constitution of this Council, and I do not wish to trespass for one single moment. But I do say that the treatment meted out to Indians is the harshest and the feeling in this country is unanimous' (Wolpert 1984: 33).

Jinnah was an active and successful member of the (mainly Hindu) Indian Congress from the start and had resisted joining the Muslim League until 1913, seven years after its foundation. None the less, Jinnah stood up for Muslim rights. In 1913, for example, he piloted the Muslim Wakfs (Trust) Bill through the Viceroy's Legislative Council, and it won widespread praise. Muslims saw in him a heavyweight on their side. For his part, Jinnah thought the Muslim League was 'rapidly growing into a powerful factor for the birth of a United India' and maintained that the charge of 'separation' sometimes levelled at Muslims was extremely wide of the mark. On the death of his mentor, Gokhale, in 1915, Jinnah was struck with 'sorrow and grief' (Bolitho 1954: 62), and in May 1915 he proposed that a memorial to Gokhale be constructed. A few weeks later in a letter to The Times of India he argued that the Congress and League should meet to discuss the future of India, appealing to Muslim leaders to keep pace with their Hindu 'friends'.

Jinnah was elected president of the Lucknow Muslim League session in 1916 (from now he would be one of its main leaders, becoming president of the League itself from 1920 to 1930 and again from 1937 to 1947 until after the creation of Pakistan). Jinnah's political philosophy was revealed in the Lucknow conference in the same year when he helped bring the Congress and the League on to one platform to agree on a common scheme of reforms. Muslims were promised 30 per cent representation in provincial councils. A common front was constructed against British imperialism. The Lucknow Pact between the two parties resulted. Presiding over the extraordinary session, he described himself as 'a staunch Congressman' who had 'no love for sectarian cries' (Afzal 1966: 56-62).

This was the high point of his career as ambassador of the two communities and the closest the Congress and the Muslim League came. About this time, he fell in love with a Parsee girl, Rattanbai (Ruttie) Petit, known as 'the flower of Bombay'. Sir Dinshaw Petit, her father and a successful businessman, was furious, since Jinnah was not only of a different faith but more than twice her age, and he refused his consent to the marriage. As Ruttie was under-age, she and Jinnah waited until she was 18, in 1918, and then got married. Shortly before the ceremony Ruttie converted to Islam. In 1919 their daughter Dina was born.

By this time even the British recognized Jinnah's abilities. Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, wrote of him in 1917: 'Jinnah is a very clever man, and it is, of course, an outrage that such a man should have no chance of running the affairs of his own country' (Sayeed 1968: 86).

Jinnah cut a handsome figure at this time, as described in a standard biography by an American professor: 'Raven-haired with a moustache almost as full as Kitchener's and lean as a rapier, he sounded like Ronald Coleman, dressed like Anthony Eden, and was adored by most women at first sight, and admired or envied by most men' (Wolpert 1984: 40). A British general's wife met him at a viceregal dinner in Simla and wrote to her mother in England:

After dinner, I had Mr. Jinnah to talk to. He is a great personality. He talks the most beautiful English. He models his manners and clothes on Du Maurier, the actor, and his English on Burke's speeches. He is a future Viceroy, if the present system of gradually Indianizing all the services continues. I have always wanted to meet him, and now I have had my wish. (Raza 1982: 34)

Mrs Sarojini Naidu, the nationalist poet, was infatuated: to her, Jinnah was the man of the future (see her 'Mohammad Ali Jinnah -- ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity', in J. Ahmed 1966). He symbolized everything attractive about modern India. Although her love remained unrequited she wrote him passionate poems; she also wrote about him in purple prose worthy of a Mills and Boon romance:

Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah's attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman's, a humour gay and winning as a child's. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man. (Bolitho 1954: 21-2)

However, Gandhi's emergence in the 1920s -- and the radically different style of politics he introduced which drew in the masses -- marginalized Jinnah. The increasing emphasis on Hinduism and the concomitant growth in communal violence worried Jinnah. Throughout the decade he remained president of the Muslim League but the party was virtually non-existent. The Congress had little time for him now, and his unrelenting opposition to British imperialism did not win him favour with the authorities. As we shall see in later chapters, he was a hero in search of a cause.

In 1929, while Jinnah was vainly attempting to make sense of the uncertain political landscape, Ruttie died. Jinnah felt the loss grievously. He moved to London with his daughter Dina and his sister Fatima, and returned to his career as a successful lawyer. At this point, Jinnah's story appeared to have concluded as far as the Indian side was concerned.

Securing a financial base

Jinnah had successfully resolved the dilemma of all those who wished to challenge British colonialism. He had secured himself financially. Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan had to compromise; Jinnah did not. This difference was made possible by developments in the early part of the century: Indians could now enter professions which gave them financial and social security irrespective of their political opinions. Earlier, Indians had been seen as either friendly or hostile natives. The former were encouraged, the latter were victimized, often losing their lands and official positions.

Jinnah's lifestyle resembled that of the upper-class English professional. Jinnah prided himself on his appearance. He was said never to wear the same silk tie twice and had about 200 hand-tailored suits in his wardrobe. His clothes made him one of the best-dressed men in the world, rivalled in India perhaps only by Motilal Nehru, the father of Jawaharlal. Jinnah's daughter called him a 'dandy', 'a very attractive man'. Expensive clothes, perhaps an essential accessory of a successful lawyer in British India, were Jinnah's main indulgence. In spite of his extravagant taste in dress Jinnah remained careful with money throughout his life (he rebuked his ADC for over-tipping the servants at the Governor's house in Lahore in 1947 -- G. H. Khan 1993: 81). Dina recounts her father commenting on the two communities: 'If Muslims got ten rupees they would buy a pretty scarf and eat a biriani whereas Hindus would save the money.'

In the early 1930s Jinnah lived in a large house in Hampstead, London, had an English chauffeur who drove his Bentley and an English staff to serve him. There were two cooks, Indian and Irish, and Jinnah's favourite food was curry and rice, recalls Dina. He enjoyed playing billiards. Dina remembers her father taking her to the theatre, pantomimes and circuses.

In the last years of his life, as the Quaid-i-Azam, Jinnah increasingly adopted Muslim dress, rhetoric and thinking. Most significant from the Muslim point of view is the fact that the obvious affluence was self-created. Jinnah had not exploited peasants as the feudal lords had done, nor had he made money like corrupt politicians through underhand deals, nor had he been bribed by any government into selling his conscience. What he owned was made legally, out of his skills as a lawyer and a private investor. By the early 1930s he was reportedly earning 40,000 rupees a month at the Bar alone (Wolpert 1984:138) -- at that time an enormous income. Jinnah was considered, even by his opponents like Gandhi, one of the top lawyers of the subcontinent and therefore one of the most highly paid. He also had a sharp eye for a good investment, successfully dabbling in property. His houses were palatial: in Hampstead in London, on Malabar Hill in Bombay and at 10 Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi, a house designed by Edwin Lutyens. His wealth gave him an independence which in turn enabled him to speak his mind.

Paradoxically, Jinnah's behaviour reflected as much Anglo-Indian sociology as Islamic theology. His thriftiness to the point of being parsimonious, his punctuality, his integrity, his bluntness, his refusal to countenance sifarish (nepotism) were alien to South Asian society (see chapter 4). Yet these were the values he had absorbed in Britain. He later attempted to weld his understanding of Islam to them. His first two speeches in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1947 reflect some of the ideas of a Western liberal society and his attempts to find more than an echo of them in Islamic history from the time of the holy Prophet (see chapter 7). Jinnah was attempting a synthesis.

Creating a country

In the early 1930s several important visitors came to Jinnah's Hampstead home, requesting him to return to India to lead the Muslim League. Eventually he was persuaded and finally returned in 1935. With little time for preparation, he led the League into the 1937 elections. Its poor showing did not discourage him; instead, he threw himself into reorganizing it. The Muslim League session in 1937 in Lucknow was a turning point and generated wide enthusiasm (see chapter 3). A snowball effect became apparent. In 1939, now in his early sixties, Jinnah made his last will, appointing his sister Fatima, his political lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan and his solicitor as joint executors and trustees of his estate. Although Fatima was the main beneficiary, he did not forget his daughter Dina and his other siblings. He also remembered his favourite educational institutions, especially Aligarh, which helped lay the foundations for Pakistan.

Jinnah's fine clothes and erect bearing helped to conceal the fact that he was in poor physical health. From 1938 onwards he was to be found complaining of 'the tremendous strain' on his 'nerves and physical endurance' (Jinnah's letter to Hassan Ispahani written on 12 April of that year in the Ispahani Collection). From then on he regularly fell ill, yet that was carefuIly hidden from the public. He remained unwell for much of the first half of 1945. Later in the year he admitted: 'The strain is so great that I can hardly bear it' (to Ispahani, 9 October 1945, Ispahani Collection). His doctors, Dr Jal Patel and Dr Dinshah Mehta, ordered him to take it easy, to rest, but the struggle for Pakistan had begun and Jinnah was running out of time.

Although by now called the Quaid-i-Azam, the Great Leader, Jinnah never courted titles. He had refused a knighthood and even a doctorate from his favourite university:

In 1942, when the Muslim University, Aligarh, had wished to award him an honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws, he refused saying: 'I have lived as plain Mr. Jinnah and I hope to die as plain Mr. Jinnah. I am very much averse to any title or honours and I will be more happy if there was no prefix to my name.' (Zaidi 1993: volume I, part I, xlv)

Not all Muslims looked up to Jinnah. Many criticized him, some because they found him too Westernized, others because he was too straight and uncompromising. One young man, motivated by religious fervour and belonging to the Khaksars, a religious party, attempted to assassinate him on 26 July 1943. Armed with a knife he broke into Jinnah's home in Bombay and succeeded in wounding him before he was overpowered. Jinnah publicly appealed to his followers and friends to 'remain calm and cool' (Wolpert 1984: 225). The League declared 13 August a day of thanksgiving throughout India.

In 1940 Jinnah presided over the League meeting in which the Lahore Resolution was moved calling for a separate Muslim homeland. In 1945-6 the Muslim League triumphed in the general elections. The League was widely recognized as the third force in India along with the Congress and the British. Even Jinnah's opponents now acknowledged him: Gandhi addressed him as Quaid-i-Azam. The Muslim masses throughout India were now with him, seeing in him an Islamic champion.

By the time Mountbatten came to India as Viceroy in 1947 Jinnah was dying; he would be dead in 1948. Neither the British nor the Congress suspected the gravity of Jinnah's illness. Many years later Mountbatten confessed that had he known he would have delayed matters until Jinnah was dead; there would have been no Pakistan.

There were several dramatic twists and turns on the way to Pakistan, with Jinnah trying to negotiate the best possible terms to satisfy the high expectations and emotions of the Muslims. Pakistan was finally conceded in the summer of 1947, with Jinnah as its Governor-General. It was, in his words, 'moth-eaten' and 'truncated', but still the largest Muslim nation in the world. In Karachi, its capital, as Governor-General Jinnah delivered two seminal speeches to the Constituent Assembly on 11 and 14 August (see chapter 7). Suddenly, at the height of his popularity, Jinnah resigned the presidency of the League.

Despite his legendary reserve and the seriousness of his position, Jinnah retained his quiet sense of humour. As Governor-General, when he was almost worshipped in Pakistan, he was told that a certain young lady had said she was in love with his hands (Bolitho 1954: 213). Shortly afterwards, she was seated near him at a function, and Jinnah mischievously asked her not to keep looking at his hands. The lady was both thrilled and embarrassed at having amused the Quaid-i-Azam.

By now his health was seriously impaired. He was suffering from tuberculosis, and his heavy smoking -- fifty cigarettes a day of his favourite brand, Craven A -- and punishing work schedule had also taken their toll. Jinnah died on 11 September 1948 at the age of 71. The nation went into deep mourning (see plates 4 and 15). Quite spontaneously, hundreds of thousands of people joined the burial procession -- a million people, it was estimated. They felt like orphans; their father had died. Dina, on her only visit to Pakistan, recalls 'the tremendous hysteria and grief'.

The grief was genuine. Those present at the burial itself or those who heard the news still look back on that occasion as a defining moment in their lives. They felt an indefinable sense of loss, as if the light had gone out of their lives. (As a typical example take the case of Sartaj Aziz, a distinguished Pakistani statesman. He remembers the impact that hearing of Jinnah's death had on him. He had fainting fits for three days. His mother said that he did not respond in the same manner to his own father's death.) A magnificent mausoleum in Karachi was built to honour Jinnah.

This, then, is the bare bones of Jinnah's life.

The role of Jinnah's family

The closest members of Jinnah's family were his sister Fatima, his wife Ruttie and their daughter, their only child, Dina. Ruttie and Dina are problematic for many Pakistanis, especially for sociological and cultural reasons. For the founder of the nation -- the Islamic Republic of Pakistan -- to have married a Parsee appears inexplicable to most Pakistanis. Jinnah's orthodox critics taunted him, composing verses about him marrying a kafirah, a female infidel (Khairi 1995: 468; see also G. H. Khan 1993: 77): 'He gave up Islam for the sake of a Kafirah / Is he the Quaid-i-Azam [great leader] or the Kafir-i-Azam [great kafir]?'

Dina is seen by many as the daughter who deserted her father by marrying a Christian. Because she did not go to live in Pakistan Dina is regarded as 'disloyal'. Pakistanis have blotted out Ruttie and Dina from their cultural and historical consciousness. Thus Professor Sharif al Mujahid, a conscientious and sympathetic biographer and former director of the Quaid-i-Azam Academy in Karachi, does not mention either woman in his 806-page volume (1981). Nor did the archives, pictorial exhibitions and official publications contain more than the odd picture of the two. Someone appears to have been busy eliminating their photographs.

It is almost taboo to discuss Jinnah's personal life in Pakistan; Ruttie and Dina, his beloved wife and daughter, have both been blacked out from history. None the less, it is through a study of his family that we see Jinnah the man and understand him more than at any other point in his life because that is when he exposes his inner feelings to us.

Fatima: sister of Jinnah

The relationship between Jinnah and his sister Fatima (see plate 2) is important in helping us to understand Jinnah, the Muslim movement leading to Pakistan and Pakistan history. Her name of course comes from that of the Prophet's daughter and symbolizes traditional Muslim family life. Born in 1893, Fatima was a constant source of strength to her brother, and after his death she remained the symbol of a democratic Pakistan true to his spirit, a symbol of modern Muslim womanhood. Closest to Jinnah of his siblings in looks and spirit, Fatima is known as the Madr-e-Millat, Mother of the Nation, in Pakistan.

After their father's death in 1901, Jinnah became her guardian, first securing her education as a boarder at a convent when she was nine in 1902 and then enrolling her in a dental college in Calcutta in 1919. In 1923 he helped her set up a clinic in Bombay. All this was done in the face of opposition at home because Muslim society of the time discouraged Western education and Western professions for its women (F. Jinnah 1987: xvii). When Ruttie died, Fatima gave up her career as a dentist at the age of 36 and moved into Jinnah's house to run it and look after Dina; she then accompanied Jinnah on his voluntary exile in London. She accepted the role of her brother's confidante, friend, assistant and chief ally.

Fatima attended the League session in 1937 and all the annual sessions from 1940 onwards when she took on the role of organizing women in favour of the League. She was with her brother on his triumphant plane journey to Pakistan from Delhi and stepped out with him on the soil of the independent nation that he had created in August 1947.

In the last years she was anxious that Jinnah was burning himself out in the pursuit of Pakistan. When she expressed concern for his health he would reply that one man's health was insignificant when the very existence of a hundred million Muslims was threatened. 'Do you know how much is at slake?' he would ask her (F. Jinnah 1987: 2). She was the last person to see him on his deathbed.

Yahya Bakhtiar, a senator from Baluchistan who was sensitive to the issue of notions of women's honour in Baluch society, pointed out that in those days not even British male politicians encouraged their womenfolk to take a public role as Jinnah did. After Pakistan had been created he asked Fatima Jinnah to sit beside him on the stage at the Sibi Darbar, the grand annual gathering of Baluch and Pukhtun chiefs and leaders at Sibi. He was making a point: Muslim women must take their place in history. The Sibi Darbar broke all precedents.

Fatima's behaviour echoed that of her brother. Zeenat Rashid, daughter of Sir Abdullah Haroon, a leader of Sind who was one of Jinnah's followers, said that although the Jinnahs stayed in her family home in Karachi for weeks at a time there was never a hint of moral or financial impropriety. They would never accept presents; indeed no one would dare to give any. There was no lavish spending at government expense. On the contrary, the joke was that when Fatima Jinnah was in charge of the Governor-General's house after the creation of Pakistan the suppliers would be in dismay. 'She has ordered half a dozen bananas ... or half a dozen oranges because six people will have lurch,' they would moan. The ADCs would ring Zeenat Rashid and say they wished to come to her house for a good meal; they were hungry. Jinnah's broad Muslim platform was also echoed by his sister years after his death, as quoted by Liaquat Merchant: 'I said, "Miss Jinnah even you are born a Shia." To this she remarked, "I am not a Shia, I am not a Sunni, I am a Mussalman." She also added that the Prophet of Islam has given us Muslim Religion and not Sectarian Religion' (Merchant 1990: 165).

Later in life, retired and reclusive, she once again entered public life. In the mid-1960s, as a frail old woman she took on Field Marshal Ayub Khan, then at the height of his power, in an attempt to restore democracy. To challenge a military dictator is a commendable act of courage in Pakistan. She came very close to toppling him, in spite of the vote-rigging and corruption:

A combined opposition party with Fatima Jinnah, sister of the Quaid-i-Azam (Founder of the Nation), Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as its candidate won a majority in three of the country's sixteen administrative divisions -- Chittagong, Dacca, and Karachi. Despite a concerted political campaign on the part of the government, Fatima Jinnah received 36 percent of the national vote and 47 percent of the vote in East Pakistan. (Sisson and Rose 1990: 19)

Fatima was bitter about the way Pakistan had treated her and dishonoured the memory of her brother by the use of martial law, and by corruption and mismanagement. The strain of the campaign hastened her end and she died in 1967, just after the elections, at the age of 74. She is buried within the precincts of Jinnah's mausoleum in Karachi. Fatima Jinnah remains an unsung heroine of the Pakistan movement. A fierce nationalist, a determined woman of integrity and principle, she reflected the characteristics of her brother.

© 1997 Akbar S. Ahmed All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-415-14965-7

Two-Nation Theory Exists

By Samina Mallah

PAKISTAN is now 60, the most mature age of a nation. On March 23, 1940, our founding fathers resolved to commit themselves to Iqbal�s vision.

The Allama�s dream was of a separate homeland free of external domination, based on the lofty ideals of Islam, where the Muslims of the subcontinent could live in accordance with the tenets of Islam.

As a result of their determined struggle under the charismatic and sagacious leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a major Muslim country was placed on the map of the world on 14th August 1947.

<span style='color:red'>

Muslims in India were not an occupying force as India tries to depict in its revision of history which is being protested by all historians in India. Waves of people came to India along with the Aryans who brought features of Hinduism with them</span>.


Looks like the Indian History, AIT and the difference between Harrapan, Vedic period and dravidian/Aryan has been written MAINLY FOR THE PAKISTANI MUSLIMS.</i>

Among these waves were some Central Asians, who, like the Aryans before them, settled down, married, declared the place their country, contributed and died in India. The name India itself is an English version of the Arabic word Hind for India.

With hundreds of years� worth of heritage when Muslims failed to defend India from Europeans, it was the beginning of problems for South Asia�s Muslim population.

For 500 years, India witnessed a tolerant Muslim rule, under which economic prosperity, educational reforms and relative racial equality were a norm.

However, as the British East India Company took over India by the mid-19th century, masses of Muslim-owned agricultural and commercial lands were annexed and multitudes of Muslim professionals, elites, and officers were dismissed from government positions.

While the Hindus were promoted, the Muslims of India were ignored and reduced to second-class citizens. A comprehensive analysis of the state of Muslims under British rule is documented by a British author, William Hunter, in his monumental work, Indian Musalman, published in 1871, in which he explains, �Now all sorts of employment, high or low, great or small are being gradually snatched away from the Mohammedans [Muslims], and given to other races particularly Hindus.

They are reduced to Bahistee, wood cutters, peons or pen menders in offices.� Ulema and Imams of mosques, by design, were made to live hand to mouth and collect loafs of bread everyday from doorsteps of their own muqtadis.

This biased treatment of the British against Muslims, along with Hindu chauvinism, gave rise to Muslims� demand for proportionate representation in government jobs and electoral seats.

The constant opposition of Hindus for minority rights and the worsening prejudiced treatment of Muslims germinated the Pakistan Movement and the Two-Nation Theory. One response surfaced in the form of the All-India Muslim League, founded in 1906, in Dhaka, which served to protect and advance the political rights of the Muslims of India.

Hindu nationalists, however, heavily promoted the name of Pakistan, before even Muslims adopted it as their goal. By the 1930s and 1940s, the Muslims of India and the leaders of Muslim League realized that while politically their very existence and survival in Hindu-led independent India would be perilous from a cultural and social standpoint, it foreshadowed their gradual extinction. This was a real fear which, running through their rank, fuelled and intensified the Pakistan Movement.

As the poet-philosopher Muhammad Iqbal states in his presidential address of the Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930: �The formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North West India�<span style='color:red'>the life of Islam as a cultural force in this country very largely depends on its centralization in a specified territory.</span>

�The approach of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Iqbal towards Indian Muslims� freedom was deeply rooted in pragmatism - it was embedded, on the one hand, in universally accepted democratic and constitutional norms and, on the other, it represented the inalienable right of Muslims to statehood in areas where they excelled in numerical strength. The claim of Muslims to nationhood was an expression of both truth and reality of the situation.

The Pakistan Resolution of March 23rd, 1940, signified the peak of a long trailing freedom struggle of 100 million Muslims of South Asia, as well as a focal point of their destiny - Pakistan. This resolution, which was presented by Maulvi Abul Kasim Fazlul Haq, Premier of Bengal, demanded that the Muslim-majority areas in the Northwestern and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent States, using a confederatory model, in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.

Despite its meager resources, Pakistan and the idea of Pakistan have survived more than half a century despite the prediction by the Indian leadership at the time of independence that in a few years, Pakistan would be begging to join India. Hundreds and thousands of Muslims throughout India, Bangal, Burma and Afghanistan voted with their feet by migrating to Pakistan. On the ideological front, it symbolized Muslims� aspiration to develop a sanctuary where they could shape their lives in conformity with the principles postulated by Islam.

As Quaid-e-Azam once emphasized, �Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrine, it is a code for every Muslim, which regulated his life and his conduct - all aspects; social, political, economic etc. It is based on the highest principles of honor, integrity, fair play and justice for all.�

Although the Constitution of Pakistan has undergone a number of amendments, the ideology of Pakistan has survived in the preamble to the country�s Constitution. Pakistan was a milestone in the Pakistan Movement, but the struggle continues until its ideals are achieved for all Pakistanis.

Of late, there has been a debate in Pakistani media, whether or not the Two-Nation theory exists. There are voices for and against, and during the current peace process a campaign was launched in order to nullify the concept of Two-Nation Theory. They say with the emergence of Bangladesh, this theory is no more relevant now.

It is unfortunate that our own amongst the intelligentsia do not accept the reality on ground. Indian leaders even today repeat the same stance that they would bow Pakistan to beg for remerging into Akhand Bharat.

The discriminatory treatment meted out to over 200 million Muslims of India has led to great realization there that the Two-Nation Theory does very much exist even today. This is evident from the Ghodhra massacre and Gujarat massacre of Muslims and other such incidents and above all the fact-finding Sachar Committee Report published recently.

Indian fortnightly Frontline in its issue of December 15 published the cover story on the Sachar Committee Report saying that even after 60 years of Independence India has failed to ensure participation in governance for its largest minority group, the Muslims.

Muslims have a share of 13.4% in the country�s population but their representation in government jobs is a mere 4.9%. The report also points towards the fundamental social condition that has created this situation. Muslims across India have lesser access than other religious groups to educational facilities, particularly in higher education.

Consequently, only 3.4% of the Muslim population has completed graduation whereas the corresponding figure for non-OBC (Other Backward Communities), non-SC/ST (Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes) Hindus is 15.3%. Literacy levels are also similarly low. Only 59.1% of the community has literacy while the national average is 64.8%.

The literacy level for non-SC/ST Hindus is 65.1%. The community with such large deficit in education and employment, naturally figures high in terms of incidence of poverty. The report�s analysis is that incidence of poverty among Muslims has a Head Count Ratio (HCR) of 31%, which is second only to the SC/ST, ie HCR of 35%. Judging by the sheer volume of representations that the Committee is said to have received, there seems to be a sort of general consensus among Muslims throughout India that they are economically and socially �backward� compared with the general population.

The fact that by and large Muslims are indeed economically marginalized is well known, a point the Sachar Committee report reiterates.

Our dilemma is that probably, in practical terms, we have not conformed to being a One-Nation even after 60 years of Independent Pakistan. Practically we have refused to let our ranks united. Softening of borders with India doesn�t mean we should submit our individual identity to the totality of subcontinent.

We have proved that we are an equally strong, impregnable nation with the superior nuclear technology in our hands. We can excel in every field and every walk of life. Friendship is acceptable only on equal and honourable basis, without losing our national and cultural identity.●

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)