Red - Revolution
Green - Prosperity
Today at 8:50am
From the desk of PAIM. Middle East
A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty, Is worth a whole eternity in bondage.- Joseph Addison.
The final destiny of the Muslims, which the Poet of the East, Allama Iqbal, had envisioned in 1930, became a reality after 1940. By then the Muslim politics had taken a new and significant turn. The departure from the post-1937 policy was remarkable. The Muslims no longer wanted an Indian federation. As the Congress traveled towards the idea of a "United India", so did the League turn towards "Muslim Independence". The Indian political situation had undergone a basic fundamental change and never again was it to be the same.
The rule of the Congress ministries from July 1937 to October 1939 had been nothing short of a nightmare. The files of the Muslim newspapers of the period testify to the undemocratic and anti-Muslim character of the Congress. The "just and legitimate demands" of the Muslims were ignored. The Quaid-i-Azam accused the Congress of aiming to revive "Hindu domination and supremacy" over the entire subcontinent.
Muslim reaction to Congress rule is said to have, maybe, led directly to the creation of Pakistan. It was widely believed that had the Congress government lasted longer, communal fighting would have broken out on an unprecedented scale. "If the Hindus were bent on having a strong centre, let them have it. But let the Muslims have their own separate centre," this was partition: the Muslim reply to Hindu Unitarianism. And this was Pakistan: the Muslim retort to Hindu hegemony.
Even before the All India Muslim League passed its historic Pakistan Resolution in March 1940, the establishment of a separate Muslim state or states in the subcontinent had been advocated by a number of public figures. These harbingers of Pakistan had emphatically suggested that the Hindus and the Muslims were distinct communities with the attributes of different nations and recommended the division of the country between the two. As far back as 1867, Sir Syed had said: "It was now impossible for Hindus and Muslims to progress as a single nation." Despondent over the future of Muslims in India he told a students' gathering in Ludhiana that the Muslims were a nation. "All individuals joining the fold of Islam, together constitute a nation of Muslims."The disunity of India had been pointed out by Sir John Seeky; author of "The Expansion of England" as early as 1883. He said, "India is not a political name, but only a geographical expression. India does not mark the territory of a nation or a language, but the territory of many nations and many languages."
Syed Amir Ali, author of the famous work, "The Spirit of Islam" also described the Hindus and the Muslims as two nations. Sir Muhammad Iqbal was the first important public figure to propound the idea of partition from the platform of the Muslim League. He articulated his vision in 1930, in his presidential address at Allahabad.
Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, a Muslim student at Cambridge coined the word "Pakistan" and found the Pakistan National Movement in 1933. He said, "The Mussalmans pass a history, a civilisation, a culture of their own. In our present struggle our back is to the wall ...... for us is a question of "to be or not to be," we know that Pakistan is our destiny."
Although ideas of Muslim separation had been floating in the Indian political atmosphere, yet none had dared to give them a concrete shape. Allama Iqbal had put forward a suggestion but had then relapsed into silence. He inspired rather than led his co-religionists. He was the Mazzini and not the Cavour of Muslim India. Rehmat Ali was consistent but less equipped. Only an established political party could father the idea by making it a plank in its programme.
This is precisely what the Muslim League did at Lahore in March 1940. In its historic session at Lahore, the League for the first time, adopted the idea of partition as its final goal. The Quaid's presidential address on the occasion is a landmark in the history, for it made an irrefutable case for dividing India into Hindu and Muslim states. The Quaid had, at long last, discovered the truth about the Congress and its intentions. "When you scratch a Congressman, you find a Hindu underneath," he said.
On 23rd of March 1940, a resolution was passed by Moulvi Fazlul Haque, the Chief Minister of Bengal, and was adopted unanimously. The resolution inter alia stated: "Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All India Muslim League that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped to constitute 'Independent States' in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." The resolution was seconded by Chaudhry Khaliq-uz-Zaman, and supported among others by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Sardar Aurangzeb Khan, Sir Abdullah Haroon and I I Chundrigar.
From then onwards, the Muslim League policy was clear and unmistakable. It did not want one India with a clear Hindu majority, which through a parliamentary system of government and so-called democratic process would nullify Muslim rights and interests. The Pakistan Resolution was the Muslim answer to Congress ambitions. The Quaid did not have to define Pakistan. All knew what he meant. Beverley Nichols, visiting India in 1943, asked the Quaid how he would describe the vital principle of Pakistan. "In five words," replied the Quaid, "the Muslims are a nation."
With the adoption of the Pakistan ideal, Muslim nationalism came into its own. It had taken Muslims three quarters of a century to finally decide what they wanted. "They had tried everything," says Dr KK Aziz, a renowned scholar, "a revolt in 1857, friendship with Britain, opposition to the Congress, extremist agitation, co-operation with the Congress, belligerent neutrality, negotiations, appeals, threats." The march of history had made a nation of a community. No longer, writes Dr Aziz, did they eat out their heart in sullen impotence, trusting in the beneficence of the British or the goodwill of the Hindus. To the Congress claim that India was a National State, the Muslims answered with the brand new idea of separate Muslim nationalism.
Why did the Muslim demand Pakistan? Because, they feared the prospect of Hindu domination. Z A Suleri gave three main reasons behind the demand for Pakistan: Muslims having ruled India before the advent of the British were entitled to rule at least the Muslim majority areas; Hindu and Muslim philosophies of life and ways of life were so far apart from each other that it was "impossible for them to live together;" Muslims were convinced that their economic and social problems could be solved only by an approach to Islam, and this was impractible until they had a state of their own. Carimbhoy Ibrahim was of the view that the attitude of the Congress had always been communal and that it had never taken the Muslims into confidence when it wielded power. It always wanted to establish Hindu raj by introducing the Vidya Mandir Scheme, the Wardha Scheme, the "Bande Mataram" song and other Hindu practices and beliefs. Not once in any way had it shown a desire to accommodate the Muslims.
Thus, 83 years after the formal end of the Mughal empire, the Muslims of South Asia firmly decided on the political future they wished to shape for themselves. The struggle for Pakistan had begun.
How, one may ask, did the Founding Fathers accomplish such a monumental task? Through unflinching resolve, patriotic zeal and singleness of purpose. They battled against formidable odds before they could reach the frontiers of the Promised Land. But, sad to relate, within a few years of the Quaid's demise, a band of usurpers raised their ugly heads. They crippled the Muslim League, blacklisted old and venerable politicians, threw caution to the winds, embarked on a reckless career and played havoc with what the founder had achieved. They even lost one half of the country. The other half that survived is also under threat. Pakistan is in a jam. Its political, economic and social fabric is in tatters. "The centre cannot hold. The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Could we bring back the spirit of the forties? Yes, we can, if a stroke of good fortune brings forth a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens endowed with the same resolve, passion and dedication that had fired the hearts of the Men of 1940. Time is running out. How much longer shall destiny test our patience?
Now after 70 years , on 23rd March 2010, we the PAIMER's want to bring another revolution which is required in to save PAKISTAN as in 1940 it was to make it but now is the moment to save it.
So lets all be united & have this opportunity to make this happen on this historical day related to Pakistan's history. We are in the same position where we were after 83 years in 1940.
So lets turn PAIM dream into a reality & move on.
Khoula Nastran Khan Sweden Khoula Nastran Khan Sweden March 27 at 9:59pm
PAKISTAN AWAMI INQILAB MOVEMENT
from Khoula Khan Khattak
Senior Vice President
PAIM Sweden... See More
Subject:Reply about REVOLUTION OCCURRANCE
Dear toori,thank you for your multi points about various subjects and also your vision and sight on Occurrance of Revolution..
I respect your every point as I take it as in interest of of our party..
the revolution u talking about namrd after commencement is in a way very right also revolution does not knock at the doors..
Hopefully you have gone thru mostly revolutions successfull,and if so u must be aware that only their party name was not carrying banner of revolution but their leaders used word revolution so much frquently n their adress to public and in messages that we will commence revolution,their every speech reaching public was full of not only with word revolution but to bring revolutionary changes after ousting regimes..
hope you still remember Bhagat singh mangal panday and other so many revolutionary legends who spoke nothing but Revolution openly..they use to knock at the doors of people by printing and delivering posters pumphlets and print material at the door steps of the nation thru every possible availbe means,,Hope you read the history of HITLER too..am sure u know well Chines Mao `s revolution and also French revolutionary process to Revolutionary chnge..
Any Khomeni`s speeches carried word REVOLUTION so frquently in almost 80 percent of his speeches and also his associates back in iran while khomeni`s exile were portraying their motive of change as Revolutionary actions and they expressed Commenvcing revolution in their not only Mosque speeches but in secret meetings and party meetings..
That means they did every thing related to Revolution in advance but having their parties without name REVOLUTION..
hope u read stalins revolution also ,,I mean if u go thru every revolution history succeeded was full of declaration and announcement of Revolution but they never held their party names a Revolutionary command,,
Hope you know the history of Napoleaon,i am sure you know that how many Napoleans existed in those times,,i am sure you know only one napolean as many out there knows that,,you said you are a writer so I expect that you will have enough knowledge about statistics on napoleons ..Please update and upgrade my knowledge of yours by informing me n this..
In old times when electronic media didnt existed then people use to print revolutionary material and use to distribute house to house in dark nights,,then time came when audio cassettes were used as khomeni did,later with the time span tv radio and finally internet was the source to relay the message and we are people of that era,,
I am sure I have made my self very clear on so many points raised in your learnerd brains..
However thank you for yyour concerns about us..
I surely hve true regrds for you on that,and I am sure your so much concern will also impress my daring leadership President Agha Hassan Syed and DP jamal Takkko.
Thank you once again
Khoula nastran khan khattak
Pakistan Awami Inqilab Movement Sweden