Editor's Choice

Featured Post

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


Sunday, 29 March 2009

Irfan Hussain: The Zia-ist mindset, Pakistani media and the support of the right wing

This site has moved to http://criticalppp.com/archives/1174, click this link if you are not redirected


Aamir Mughal said...

Reality of Religious Right Wing of Pakistan [Read Jamat-e-Islami, Military Establishment and Pakistani Text Books]

Fall of Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto an his Family was due to his attaining Nuclear Power for Pakistan

The explosive situation in the region is the direct or indirect result of the threat hurled by Dr. Henry Kissinger to late. Bhutto and tacit support of Ronald Reagan to the so-called Islamic Dictator General Mohammad Ziaul Haq (1977-1988).


"It is generally believed that the US wanted Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto to be removed from the political scene of Pakistan mainly on two accounts. First, for the nuclear policy that he framed and tried to relentlessly pursue and secondly, from apprehensions that ZAB was influencing the countries. He posed a serious challenge to the US interests in the region. “Tally-ho. Kill Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, “ yelled the self-proclaimed policemen of the world. During August 1976, Amercian Secretary of States, Dr. Henry Kissinger had warned Bhutto, “We will make a horrible example of you,” adding menacingly, “When the railroad is coming, you get out of the way.” The American had successfully cultivated a number of well-placed bureaucrats, PPP stalwarts and ministers who wittingly or inadvertently served as the US agents of influence. American diplomats and CIA operators not only got most of the ‘inside’ information from these ‘gentlemen’ but also utilized their good offices to ‘convey’ whatever they wanted to feed or plant. Some officers from USMAAG had also made meaningful ingresses in the General Headquarters and not only gathered the thinking in the Services Headquarters but would also drop a ‘suggestion’ here and there.

Some of the US Diplomats had established direct contacts with a number of PNA leaders whom they continued to aid, support and give day-to-day line of action. A number of US diplomats were not only actively involved but also directed the operations against Bhutto. Jan M. Gibney, Political Officer, US Consulate General, Lahore, duly assisted by a couple of Pakistanis, was extremely active and would frequently visit a number of Politicians Maulana Maudoodi of Jamat-e-Islami and Maulan Obaidullah Anwar, Jamiat-e-Ulmai- Islam of Sheranwala Gate, Lahore. Apart from holding meetings, a wireless network had been established between the USIS-US Consulate General – Maulana Maudoodi’s residence. It was Gibney who had telephoned and conveyed to Howard B. Schaffer, Chief of Political Affairs, US Embassy, Islamabad, that notorious sentence, “The party is over. Merchandise has gone.” The US had also released PL-480 funds. Over night some Jamat-e-Islami workers were seen with pockets full of money and spending lavishly. A number of businessmen, particularly those, who had suffered due to ZAB’s economic and industrial policies, had also been prompted to contribute towards the PNA funds. As there were no party accounts being maintained as such, the contributions were received personally by some of the leaders. Justice (Retd.) Kaikaus and Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa are among those who are alleged to have made millions."

[PROFILES OF INTELLIGENCE by Brigadier Syed I. A. Tirmazi, SI (M).


As per Daily Dawn dated -04-02-2008 report "In the book some extracts of which were carried by The Sunday Times (Exclusive: Benazir Bhutto’s last testament) Ms Bhutto gives a hint about the hands that wrote the plot to kill her. “When I returned, I did not know whether I would live or die. I knew that the same elements of Pakistani society that had colluded to destroy my father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and end democracy in Pakistan in 1977 were now arrayed against me for the same purpose exactly 30 years later. “I was told by both the Musharraf regime and the foreign Muslim government that four suicide bomber squads would attempt to kill me. These included, the reports said, squads sent by the Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud; Hamza Bin Laden, a son of Osama Bin Laden; Red Mosque militants; and a Karachi-based militant group." [1]

"She disclosed that a media representative had told her on return from Dubai that he had received a phone call from a retired military official that there would be an attack on her that day and that the MQM would be doing that. “I said that if such an attack comes, it will not be from the MQM.” [2]

Ms. Benzair Bhutto's also opined in her book on remnants of General Zia earlier Late. Ms Bhutto had said the same thing in her press conference on 19-10-2007. "QUOTE"I knew that the same elements of Pakistani society that had colluded to destroy my father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and end democracy in Pakistan in 1977 were now arrayed against me for the same purpose exactly 30 years later. Former prime minister and Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto on Friday condemned the suicide attack on her rally and blamed it on what she termed ‘Zia remnants’[1][ 2].


USA, General Zia, JAMAT-E-ISLAMI, Henry Kissinger [Former US Secretary of State] were all bedfellows who destroyed Bhutto in 1977 and later his daughter in 2007: [General Zia Martial Law Period 1977-1988]


Professor Ghafoor Ahmed [Central Leader of Deviant Jamaat-e-Islami and Federal Minister in General Zia's Martial Law Cabinet.

Jamat-e-Islami nowadays calls for the restoration of Democracy and Restoration of Constitution of 1973 from the banner of APDM whereas the same Jamat-e-Islami under the banner of MMA gave clean chit to General Musharraf's Rampant Martial Law Regime [2002-2007] through notorious LFO and 17th Constitutional Amendment to do wahtever he likes. In the past the same Jamat-e-Islami [when its Deviant Founder Syed Abul Ala'a Maudoodi was alive] provided its very senior member Professor Ghafoor to serve General Zia ul Haq:

Professor Ghafoor Ahmad of Jamat-e-Islami was a Federal Minister Production Industries in General Zia Martial Law Cabinet [1978-1979] [Reference Cabinet Division Pakistan] On August 23 1978 following person inducted in General Zia Cabinet:

1- Ghulam Ishaq Khan [Later dismissed two elected government in Pakistan one at the behest of General Aslam Beg in 1990]

2- A.K.Brohi

3- Mahmood Haroon

4- Mohammad Khan Junejo

5- Sharifuddin Pirzada [nowadays with present Miltary Regime of Musharraf since 12 Oct 1999]

6- Mohammad Ali Hoti 7- Professor Ghafoor Ahmad (Jamat-e-Islami) [From 2002-2007 under MMA Professor Sahab was part of an alliance which shared government with Mr Musharraf's Martial Law]

Former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark says

"Clark pointed to the CIA's activities in Iran as evidence of its willingness to support dictators over democrats. U.S. officials can justify supporting a dictatorship in Pakistan, said Clark, because it "daggers the underbelly of the Soviet Union." Almost three decades later, Bhutto fans, analysts and keen Pakistani observers suspect Clark's utterances to be true and insist they should not be trashed so easily. Says one Bhutto follower, ".....see in 1977 Bhutto was removed and hurriedly executed. and in just about 24 months, Russia was in Afghanistan (December 1979) and Pakistan, USA, Saudi Arabia et al were all there together running an "Islamic Jihad" against the Communists. It takes more than a year to plan an invasion so big or a counter-attack so effective no?......both the CIA and the KGB knew what each one of them were doing, planning.... But Bhutto was the "wild card" in the overall Western game plan. Read his book If I am Assassinated. ..it tells you all." In later years, Ramsey Clark wrote " Bhutto was removed from power in Pakistan by force on the 5th of July, after the usual party on the 4th at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, with U.S. approval, if not more, by General Zia al-Haq. Bhutto was falsely accused and brutalized for months during proceedings that corrupted the judiciary of Pakistan before being murdered, then hanged. That Bhutto had run for president of the student body at University of California in Berkeley and helped arrange the opportunity for Nixon to visit China did not help him when he defied the U.S. (CovertAction Quarterly magazine, Fall 1998)"[3]

Just to list a few of the alleged assassinations conducted or planned by U.S. agents exposes the crisis in confidence covert actions have created for our country. Allende, Lumumba, Diem, Bhutto, with many questioning whether President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., should be included, and U.S. planning for the assassination of Fidel Castro part of our public record, while air and missile attacks directed at Qaddafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq missed their targets. CIA Director Richard Helmspleaded guilty to perjury for false testimony he gave before the U.S. Senate on the CIA' s role in the overthrow of President Allende. He was fined, but his two-year prison sentence was suspended. But the American public is unaware of it, and Chile has never been the same. U.S. support for the overthrow of Allende was the essential element in that tragedy. For years, Patrice Lumumba's son would ask me whenever we met, first in Beirut, or later in Geneva, if the U.S. killed his father. I finally gave him a copy of former CIA officer John Stockwell's In Search of Enemies, which tells the story. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in later years that the U.S. killed Diem, painfully adding, "And Jack was responsible. " Bhutto was removed from power in Pakistan by force on the l5th of July, after the usual party on the 4th at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, with U.S. approval, if not more, by General Zia al-Haq. Bhutto was falsely accused and brutalized for months during proceedings that corrupted the judiciary of Pakistan before being murdered, then hanged. That Bhutto had run for president of the student body at U.C. Berkeley and helped arrange the opportunity for Nixon to visit China did not help him when he defied the U.S. [4]

Jamat-e-Islami' s Contribution for destructing Democracy and Bhuttos from Pakistan in 1977:

Jamat-e-Islami and US Central Intelligence Agency.

It is generally believed that the US wanted Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto to be removed from the political scene of Pakistan mainly on two accounts. First, for the nuclear policy that he framed and tried to relentlessly pursue and secondly, from apprehensions that ZAB was influencing the countries. He posed a serious challenge to the US interests in the region.“Tally-ho. Kill Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, “ yelled the self-proclaimed policemen of the world. During August 1976, Amercian Secretary of States, Dr. Henry Kissinger had warned Bhutto, “We will make a horrible example of you,” adding menacingly, “When the railroad is coming, you get out of the way.”

The American had successfully cultivated a number of well-placed bureaucrats, PPP stalwarts and ministers who wittingly or inadvertently served as the US agents of influence. American diplomats and CIA operators not only got most of the ‘inside’ information from these ‘gentlemen’ but also utilized their good offices to ‘convey’ whatever they wanted to feed or plant. Some officers from USMAAG had also made meaningful ingresses in the General Headquarters and not only gathered the thinking in the Services Headquarters but would also drop a ‘suggestion’ here and there. Some of the US Diplomats had established direct contacts with a number of PNA leaders whom they continued to aid, support and give day-to-day line of action.

A number of US diplomats were not only actively involved but also directed the operations against Bhutto. Jan M. Gibney, Political Officer, US Consulate General, Lahore, duly assisted by a couple of Pakistanis, was extremely active and would frequently visit a number of Politicians Maulana Maudoodi of Jamat-e-Islami and Maulan Obaidullah Anwar, Jamiat-e-Ulmai- Islam of Sheranwala Gate, Lahore. Apart from holding meetings, a wireless network had been established between the USIS-US Consulate General – Maulana Maudoodi’s residence. It was Gibney who had telephoned and conveyed to Howard B. Schaffer, Chief of Political Affairs, US Embassy, Islamabad, that notorious sentence, “The party is over. Merchandise has gone.”

The US had also released PL-480 funds. Over night some Jamat-e-Islami workers were seen with pockets full of money and spending lavishly. A number of businessmen, particularly those, who had suffered due to ZAB’s economic and industrial policies, had also been prompted to contribute towards the PNA funds. As there were no party accounts being maintained as such, the contributions were received personally by some of the leaders. Justice (Retd.) Kaikaus and Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa are among those who are alleged to have made millions. [PROFILES OF INTELLIGENCE by Brigadier Syed A. I. Tirmazi, SI (M).

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

As per another noted Islamic Scholar of repute Maulana Waheeduddin Khan [One of the founder member of Jamat-e-Islami who later resigned from JI]


"Maudoodi founded his movement on the maxim of 'Rule of Allah' and had said only Allah's rule is allowed on the people and the world and all the other laws made by human beings are wrong {BATIL}. For Muslims following such man made laws is Haram {forbidden} as for Muslims it is a must for him to work for enforcing Allah's Rule/Laws or die in the same cause. Maulana Mauddodi used to say those who make, decide, implement and enforce non-Godly Laws, all are committing forbidden {Haram} acts. Because you cannot even punish a culprit who is proved guilty under man made law, asit would not be considered punishment it’d be crime itself as nobody has the right to decide on God’s land to decide about the punishment through man made laws. Therefore such punishment e.g. punishment for the murder {hanging} would be a murder even if the punished person is proved killer because on God’s Land nobody is allowed to take life without God’s permission mean one has to conduct a murder trial under Islamic Law.

All his life Maulana Maudoodi kept demanding the enforcement of Islamic Shariah and System. During the last years of his life he got what he wanted, on 5 July 1977 General Zia implemented Martial Law and Maudoodi lent his and his party’s complete support to General Zia not only that many of his JI members were in General Zia’s Cabinet. During Zia’s tenure Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto was tried on the persistency of Jamat-e-Islami and Maudoodi’s slogan “Accountability before Elections”. Maudoodi had full chance to try Bhutto in the PURE-ISLAMIC SHARIAH COURT as per Islamic doctrine. Had he done so he would have been the best example of Practical Shahadah of Islam which he had been claiming all his life and as per him without Shahadah Islami Dawah is incomplete. But Maudoodi and his Jamat-e-Islami and their members supported the trial against Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto which was conducted as per man made law. The courts, which were the continuation of pre-partition days, were and still are run on the basis British Law. Maudoodi could have demanded the formation of Shariah Court for Bhutto’s trial but he didn’t not only that not a single person that included Maudoodi even raised a demand for establishing such Islamic Courts. The famous Murder Trial against Bhutto was run under the very eyes and support of Maulana Maudoodi and he was tried as per Anglo Saxon Jurisprudence not as per Islami Shariah. Bhutto was hanged on 4th April 1979 while Maudoodi was alive. As mentioned above by Maudoodi no punishment and law is justified and allowed in the presence of Islamic Laws but Bhutto was tried and hanged as per Anglo Saxon Laws which was man made. But Maudoodi not only supported Bhutto’s hanging but even supported the trial conducted under the auspices of man made law.

Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto {1928-1979} was hanged to death in Rawalpindi allegedly for murder as jurists differ on his hanging but there is no second opinion on that so-called Flag Bearer of Islam in Pakistan committed a murder of a person name Zoulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

BBC in one of its report said that when Bhutto was taken to gallows the last words on his lips were O God! Help me I am innocent. But when a noted journalist Mark Tully reported this news and verbatim of Bhutto in Islamabad. He was chased and gheraoed in Islamabad by the so-called flag bearers of Nizam-e-Mustafa and was thoroughly beaten and that is not the end the then government registered a case against that reporter in Rawalpindi for the said report. This was the newest form of Nizam-e-Mustafa as its followers didn’t take this Hanging of Bhutto ample enough they also wanted the guarantee that Bhutto must be granted HELL [JAHANNUM] in the life hereafter.

Maudoodi denied what he had been propagating all his life i.e. Rule of Allah and Islam particularly in the Bhutto trial and that is the tragedy with all the Islamists particularly in Pakistan that they preach what they don’t practice: ASBAQ-E-TAREEKH by Maulana Waheeduddin Khan {New Delhi India}. Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practise it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no sense? {The Cow – II (Soora Al-Baqara) Verse 44}.”


Benazir’s ‘last testament’ gives hint about plot to kill her [1]

February 04, 2008 Monday Muharram 25, 1429


Zia remnants’ blamed for Karachi carnage: Benazir vows to confront militants, fears more attacks [2]

By Shamim-ur-RahmanOctober 20, 2007 Saturday Shawwal 7, 1428


'CIA Sent Bhutto to the Gallows´ [3]


The Corruption of Covert Actions by Ramsey Clark CovertAction Quarterly magazine, Fall 1998 [4]



One wonders if Ms. Fatima Bhutto or her Mother Ms. Ghinwa Bhutto are naive or fool. In PPP hate they even forget as to what one of the leader of her own PPP Shaheed Bhutto Group had said on the sad death of Ms. Fatima's father [Late Mir Murtaza Bhutto]. Instead of blaming PPP they should recheck some history and facts as well.

"The tribunal held later in 1997 ruled that Murtaza could not have been killed without approval from the highest echelons of government." [Justice Retd Nasir Aslam Zahid]Please tell which echelon of the government is highest? Have you seen the movie 'JFK' by Oliver Stone if not then please watch it again and again, it will solve many of your puzzles.


Former interior minister Naseerullah Babar paid glowing tributes to Shoaib Suddle for restoring peace in Karachi when in 1994 the Army was withdrawn from the metropolitan city. He said the ISI was involved in the murder of Murtaza Bhutto. He said he had formed a commission to probe against the ISI but pressure was mounted on him and afterwards the inquiry was givenup. He criticized the MQM decision to join forces with the opposition. He said the MQM should join the government for the sake of peace in Karachi.

‘Bill to cut president down to size this week’ News Desk


Jawab Deyh with Iftikhar Ahmed [courtesy GEO TV]Murder Story Of Murtaza Bhutto By Justice Nasir Part5/6



"The tribunal held later in 1997 ruled that Murtaza could not have been killed without approval from the highest echelons of government." [Justice Retd Nasir Aslam Zahid]Please tell which echelon of the government is highest? Have you seen the movie 'JFK' by Oliver Stone if not then please watch it again and again, it will solve many of your puzzles."Quote"As per Ghazali BookThe Fourth Republic Chapter IXWhile the people speculated about the motives behind the killing of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, Dr. Mubashir Hasan, a former Finance Minister and a founder member of the PPP, was very blunt in his remarks: "For those whohave removed Murtaza from our midst, the real problem has been and is Prime Minister Benazir. As long as Murtaza was alive, removing Benazir carried unacceptable risks. Murtaza could take over the mantle of the elder Bhutto's legend. Else Murtaza and Benazir would be striving for a common cause, separately or jointly. That would have presented formidablepolitical problems. Murtaza gone, the way is clear. Benazir stands perilously weakened. She is the next to go. Such are the brutal pathways of realpolitik." [Dawn 25.9.1996.] [1]

As per UNHCR report:Question and Answer Research Papers UPDATE ON THE MOHAJIR QAUMI MOVEMENT (MQM) IN KARACHI:

On 20 September 1996, in a case that would eventually bring down the government, Karachi police shot and killed Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's estranged brother and political rival, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, and seven of his bodyguards outside his Karachi residence (Country Reports 1996 1997, 1466; The Herald Oct. 1996b, 24; The News 24 Feb. 1997; HRCP 1996, 50-51).Police claimed the men were killed in an encounter that began when officers attempted to arrest the bodyguards for terrorist acts and possession of unregistered weapons (Country Reports 1996 1997, 1466; The Herald Oct. 1996b, 24; AFP 19 Dec. 1996). Murtaza Bhutto had headed a PPP faction called Shaheed ("martyr") Bhutto that was opposed to his sister's governing PPP and at times allied with the MQM in Karachi (The Herald Oct. 1996c, 26; Reuters 26 Sept. 1996; Dawn 28 Jan. 1997). On 17 September police and Rangers had arrested Murtaza's second-in-command, Ali Mohammed Soonara, who was suspected of being behind numerous terrorist attacks in Karachi (The Herald Oct. 1996c, 26; ibid. Oct. 1996b, 24; HRCP 1996, 50-51).

According to The Herald, just hours after the arrest Murtaza Bhutto, anticipating that police would torture Soonara to obtain information and then kill him, led his bodyguards in a raid on two Criminal Investigation Agency (CIA) centres in a failed attempt to free Soonara (ibid. Oct. 1996c, 26; ibid. Oct. 1996b, 24). Police then registered cases against Murtaza and his bodyguards, which led to the 20 September confrontation (HRCP 1996, 51; The Herald Oct. 1996c, 26; ibid. Oct. 1996b, 24).

According to The Herald, Murtaza Bhutto had been travelling in an armed motorcade that police intercepted outside his residence (Oct. 1996b, 25-28). The Herald report indicates that a single shot appears to have set off a volley of shots from police; police claim there was a prolonged shoot-out, but according to witnesses there was little return fire from Murtaza's guards (ibid.).

Writing in The Herald in October 1996, Hasan Zaidi argued that the case highlighted a profound loss of faith among Pakistanis: "the lack of trust among the public in the organs of the state and the eroding credibility of institutions is emblematic of a much bigger problem" (Oct. 1996a, 40). Zaidi argued that if the state had been functioning properly, Murtaza's death would have launched widespread reforms:

The entire structure and operating procedures of the law enforcement agencies would have come in for review and transformation, making both more accountable to the public, as would have the laxity of laws which allowed Murtaza to move with impunity within the city in a convoy of guards armed to the hilt with deadly weapons. Such a reform movement would have also questioned why certain pockets within the administration were outside the normal chain of command and answerable only to their direct political and military patrons, as is the case with an elite group of police officers in Karachi (ibid., 40-41).

In fact the case has had wide-reaching ramifications: in early November 1996 President Leghari dismissed the PPP government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, citing among other issues thousands of extrajudicial killings in Karachi, widespread corruption and a "sustained assault" on the judiciary (AI Nov. 1996, 1; Dialogue Dec. 1996, 4; Country Reports 1996 1997, 1472; India Abroad 15 Nov. 1996; AFP 12 Feb. 1997). In early January 1997 Asif Ali Zardari, husband of Benazir Bhutto, stood charged with Murtaza Bhutto's murder, along with former interior minister Nasirullah Babar, former Sindh chief minister Syed Abdullah Shah and several police officials, on the evidence of 52 witnesses, including Murtaza's widow Ghinwa Bhutto (ibid. 19 Dec. 1996; The News 3 Jan. 1997). According to The News from Islamabad,

The charge-sheet accused Asif Ali Zardari of hatching a conspiracy in connivance with Abdullah Shah, DIG [Deputy Inspector General] Karachi, Dr. Shoaib Suddle and Intelligence Bureau chief Masood Sharif to eliminate Murtaza Bhutto from the political scene. The charge-sheet said that they considered Murtaza Bhutto as a threat to the PPP (ibid.)

For her part Benazir Bhutto has charged that "there is a nexus between my brother's death and the president," testifying before the three-person tribunal investigating the killing that President Leghari was involved in a conspiracy to bring down her government through Murtaza's death (AFP 12 Nov. 1996; ibid. 19 Dec. 1996; The News 24 Feb. 1997). Mysteries and conspiracy theories surround the case: for example, a key witness, police officer Haq Nawaz, was murdered, there were delays in registering First Information Reports (FIRs), and a mysterious fax allegedly from Military Intelligence reportedly links Benazir Bhutto and her brother to planned terrorist attacks just before Murtaza's death (Country Reports 1996 1997, 1466; The Herald Oct. 1996a, 40-41; Dawn 17 Feb. 1997).

In April 1997 the trial of Asif Ali Zardari continued, but the political map of the country had changed: the dismissal of the Bhutto government and the calling of national and provincial elections allowed the MQM(A) to re-emerge from hiding and campaign openly for the first time in several years (The News 9 Apr. 1997; The Economist 25 Jan. 1997; AFP 9 Jan. 1997; DPA 29 Jan. 1997; The News 5 Mar. 1997).


As per a news article of UNITED NEWS OF INDIA ISLAMABAD, June 15: Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has a bagful of secrets to tell the nation, but she would let it out only after celebrating the 50th anniversary of the country's independence. She would like to tell how her Government was sacked by President Farooq Leghari, how her estranged brother Mir Murtaza was killed and about the role of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the country. But only after August 14, Pakistan's independence day.

As per a news article of UNITED NEWS OF INDIA ISLAMABAD, June 15: Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has a bagful of secrets to tell the nation, but she would let it out only after celebrating the 50th anniversary of the country's independence. She would like to tell how her Government was sacked by President Farooq Leghari, how her estranged brother Mir Murtaza was killed and about the role of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the country. But only after August 14, Pakistan's independence day.

Bhutto, who made the promise in an interview to the Pakistan Times of Lahore, disclosed that she had intended to make Aftab Sherpao the President, but ISI chief Gen Javed Ashraf Qazi told her to make Leghari instead.

Accordingly, Leghari was elected President. (Sherpao was rewarded the post of the Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province after Leghari sacked the Muslim League incumbent.)

She said the ISI was under the Prime Minister for mere namesake. The Prime Minister was not in a position to sack anyone in the agency even if he or she knew that it was hatching a conspiracy against the Premier, Bhutto said.After Leghari was elected the President, she started getting reports that he was planning to remove her. When confronted with such reports, he always denied them. But after August 13, 1996, his hostility became transparent, she said.Though the Intelligence Bureau is under the control of the Prime Minister, it could not be used for spying on the President. Declining comment on Murtaza's murder, she said she would disclose some facts after August 14. Bhutto had alleged before the three-man tribunal which inquired into the murder that President Leghari was behind it. But the tribunal, in its report on Monday last exonerated the President.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.



1- The Fourth Republic [1]

Chapter IX

Page 5



Aamir Mughal said...

Smokers corner: Revolutionary confetti by Nadeem F Paracha Sunday, 29 Mar, 2009 | 05:04 AM PST |


lt was quite a sight watching Laal ( a ‘revolutionary pop band’), being scrutinised by some three dozen young men and women on a TV channel this year on Pakistan Day.

The band is being aggressively promoted by the said TV channel — a channel which ever since the start of the Lawyers Movement in late 2007, has sprinkled itself with revolutionary confetti, cleverly treating the concept of revolution as a highly saleable software in times of socio-economic and political crises.

Of course, never is this revolution clearly defined. Instead it usually stumbles out from our TV screens as a cathartic (but highly convoluted) concoction of liberal democracy, socialism, nationalism, patriotism and religion.

Since the programme featuring Laal was live, the channel seems to have been caught unawares, believing in its own assumption that the middle-class urban youth of Pakistan too are a reflection of what the channel has been dishing out in the name radicalism and reform.

Laal mean well though, and I particularly want to single out their lead vocalist, Shahram Azhar, who seems to be a genuine, sensitive talent. However, thanks to the purely media-constructed notions of the current ‘revolutionary’ zeitgeist in the nation’s youth, I’m sure the band too were taken aback by the reception they got on that show.
Not that they were jeered — far from it, because their unplugged performance was rather marvellous — but the questions that they were asked by the audience betrayed what the electronic media has been spouting regarding middle-class youth in Pakistan.

It is a devastating case of naivety to believe (or worse, propagate), that middle-class Pakistani youth have rediscovered the revolutionary, democratic and progressive spirit that it demonstrated from the 1950s till about the mid-1980s.

The truth is, this spirit, if it really has made some sort of a comeback, seems to be confined to assorted fringe clusters, but they are noticed because to most TV channels they are saleable images.

But then these days anything is saleable if it is continuously bombarded in the mainstream media, from pop bands to whole movements. The question is, are these clusters capable of altering minds and opinions?

No is the answer if their propagated ideas are secular, especially in the political context. But yes would be the reply if the offered ideas in anyway are associated with religion.

That said the 23rd March show was a stark reminder of the above notion. The bulk of the young audience didn’t seem all that impressed by Laal’s ‘Marxist leanings’, and many of them actually suggested that good old fashioned inscrutable mantra and rhetoric of following the holy scripture.

The point is, the fringe clusters who were proudly exhibited by many TV channels during the two-year-long Lawyers Movement — passionately spouting slogans, songs and speeches about democracy, justice, free media and revolution — I’m afraid they do not mirror the spirit of today’s middle-class Pakistani youth.

I mean, coming back to that Pakistan Day show, it was naïve of the channel to believe that the audience on that show will wholeheartedly consume and appreciate Laal’s nostalgic penchant for harking back to a past dotted by such fantastic protest poets like Habib Jalib and Faiz Ahmed Faiz.

How can you expect this generation to give a hoot about Marxism, Jalib, liberalism and progressive notions of art and politics, when much of their ideas of political, economic and religious history come from hate-mongers, paranoid conspiracy theorists and at times, outright frauds, whom they see every single day on one channel or the other posing as televangelists and ‘security experts’?

Most of these kids have little or no idea about who Jalib or Faiz or Marx or Lincoln or Kennedy were. They don’t want to hark back to that; instead, they’d rather hark back to that ‘glorious age of faith’ which, in actuality, is a cleverly implanted memory in the minds of us Muslims.

Why Marx, why Laal (red), why music? The questions kept coming from the audience.

They just couldn’t intellectually comprehend a group of ‘protesters’ who (1) weren’t emotionally combusting about PPP, MQM and Lal Masjid like Imran Khan; or (2) spouting out loud long nothings like talk-show hosts, or (3) weren’t implicating the Jews, RAW, Americans and malevolent jinns in the political and economic crimes against Pakistan, the self-claimed bastion of Islam.

How can they, when most young men and women today are getting their political and historical answers from religious and political cranks!

It is a flawed assumption on part of the electronic media to think that today’s young people will be able to grasp the more liberal and progressive notions of protest.

Because on the other side of the coin are these very channels who have already captured (and arrested) this generation’s intellect with irresponsible televangelism and political programming.

Jalib is nothing but a ghostly caricature to most young people today. They’d rather debate and look out for the dreadful al-dajjal.

Aamir Mughal said...

Reality of Pakistani Right Wing:

Nuggets from the Urdu press

Cricketer Yusuf Yuhana embraces Islam

National cricketer Yusuf Yuhana was quoted in the daily Pakistan as expressing his dismay and anger at the repeated false stories in the press about his conversion to Islam. At the camp in Lahore, he refused to answer questions about his conversion and guided the reporters back to the newspaper that had published the ‘false news.’ When captain Inzimam was asked about Yuhana’s conversion, he said that while it was Yuhana’s personal matter, he would be greatly pleased if he embraced Islam. Two days later, the Nawa-e-Waqt and others reported that Yusuf Yuhana, now Muhammad Yusuf, had indeed embraced Islam in Makka along with his wife Tania, renamed Fatima. His Christian parents were deeply offended. His brothers also remained Christians. He had moved out of his Defence house where his parents lived, had taken his children out of an English-medium school and readmitted them in an Islamic school. He was influenced by fellow-cricketers and the Tablighi Jamaat.

Mehdi Bhatti wins ‘mubahila’

Reported by the daily Pakistan, MNA Mehdi Hassan Bhatti went to a mosque in Hafizabad to challenge ex-nazim Col Ali Ahmad Awan, who had accused him of massive corruption, to mubahila (a match of mutual religious abuse in which the false party dies). Mr Bhatti had gone with his son, the Punjab minister for culture Shaukat Ali Bhatti, and had asked Col Ali Ahmad to bring along his son too, so that the sons may die along with their fathers after being proved false. The ex-nazim Col Awan did not turn up. So Mr Bhatti won the mubahila and was proved free of corruption.

Pervaiz Elahi as PM?

Writing in the Jang, Hamid Mir said that in the 2005 local polls, the supporters of prime minister Shaukat Aziz have been defeated: Jehangir Tareen, Owais Leghari and Riaz Pirzada. When the time comes for the 2007 national election, Punjab CM Pervaiz Elahi will be the strongest candidate for the job of prime minister. In the opposition, the MMA and the ARD are already scattering. In the coming days the ANP will join up with Jamaat Islami, Imran Khan’s Tehreek Insaf and Muslim League (N) to challenge the Chaudhrys in power.

Shabana gets out of hand in Norway

According to Khabrain, Pakistani expatriate lady Shabana Rehman got out of hand in Norway and was having her nearly naked photos published local magazines. She was also given to insulting the most respectable clerics who often went from Pakistan to spread Islam among Pakistanis living there. She would come clad in a burqa then suddenly take it off in the meeting and insult the clerics. She was so rude to them that Norway gave her an award for being so outspoken. She thanked the mullahs for abusing her because that made her deserving of the award. Shabana went and embraced the most infamous mullah called Mullah Krekar, the Kurd terrorist now sheltering in Norway. The Pakistanis were most offended by Shabana but could not do much. She was from Karachi where she had relatives. One boy admitted that he had fired his pistol in front of Shabana’s house in Norway.

Deoband abuses the Quaid again!

Quoted in the Nawa-e-Waqt, Dr Justice (Retd) Javid Iqbal stated that he was most offended by the recent statement of the administrative head of a Deoband seminary in India that the Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah was not a Muslim. He said Deoband had in the past also apostatised Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Allama Iqbal, which was unacceptable to Pakistan. He said that the clerics of Deoband had not accepted Pakistan and had joined the Hindu Congress, so it was not surprising that today Deoband had once again abused the Quaid. He added that it was for nothing that Allama Iqbal had written a poem against the Deobandi leader Hussain Ahmad Madni. Deobandi chief Maulana Marghubur Rehman said in India that far from being a secular person, Jinnah was not even a Muslim because he never said namaz and he drank alcohol. Indian cleric Marghub later wrote in to deny that he had said anything against the Quaid.

Faraz on sex

Sarerahe in the Nawa-e-Waqt said that Ahmad Faraz had said while on a trip abroad that marriage was the most expensive institution for gaining sexual pleasure. Even if sex was not available in a marriage, one had to pay for it. He said that religion and progress were opposed to each other. He also said that all prophets were first-rate politicians. The column added that Ahmad Faraz was the son of Maulana Abdullah Kohati who was in turn the khalifa (pupil) of the famous sufi, Syed Adam Banuri whose tomb was visited by all and sundry even today.

Daud Ibrahim is not in Pakistan!

According to Khabrain, India had asked Pakistan to surrender two criminals wanted in India. One was Daud Ibrahim who could not leave Pakistan to attend his son’s wedding in Dubai. The foreign office in Islamabad replied that Daud Ibrahim was not in Pakistan. The other criminal India wanted was Maulana Masood Azhar, leader of the banned Jaish Muhammad who was sprung from an Indian jail by hijackers in 1999.

India in Afghanistan is our defeat

Quoted in the Nawa-e-Waqt, ex-ISI chief General (Retd) Hameed Gul said that it was indeed ironic that the Pakistani ambassador to the US, General (Retd) Jehangir Karamat, was asking the US whether it was a friend of Pakistan or its enemy. He said that the coming of India into Afghanistan as a major power was a defeat for Pakistan. And America was the real ally of India, not of Pakistan. America was never a friend of Pakistan nor was it going to be. Was it to allow India into Afghanistan that Pakistan sacrificed 25 years of hard work and sided with the American attack? Gul said that the statement by Karzai and Manmohan Singh, that no fight against terrorism would be successful without Pakistan, was actually an accusation of terrorism against Pakistan.

Rs 27 billion to madrassas annually

Writing in the Nawa-e-Waqt, Irfan Siddiqi stated that people who wanted to give to charity obeyed the Islamic edict that charity should be given anonymously. The madrassas in Pakistan received Rs 27 billion every year. Can the government now ask the madrassas to give account and will it send the cases against the donors to NAB?

More blasphemy from Salman Rushdie

According to Khabrain, mal’oon Salman Rushdie in his new book Shalimar the Clown was now saying that the Quran should be accepted as a historical document instead of a holy book. Rushdie, 30 years ago, was a poor man who would eat a meal within three rupees, would not take a bath and would drink cheap wine and was known to stink from his body. He also ate pig and thought dirty thoughts.

Meera is Khar’s daughter!

According to Khabrain, Pakistan’s top actress Meera announced that she was the daughter of Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar, Pakistan’s well known PPP leader. She said that her mother was first married to Khar but later divorced him to marry Sarwar Shah, who was not her real father. People around her said that her mother Shafqat Zehra had ‘known’ Khar as well as his brother Rafeeq Khar, therefore it was difficult to say whose daughter she really was. Meera denied that she had claimed Khar as her father but she promised to ask her mother about the real situation. The paper said that because of suspicion of contacts with the underworld, the Bombay police had started tailing her. Meera told Khabrain that she often called Khar daddy on the phone which was intercepted by Indian newspapers and publicised. She said that Khar came to her house often but her real father was still Sarwar Shah.

Hafeez Jullundhari meets Jullundhari shopkeeper

According to Ataul Haq Qasimi inthe Jang, the writer of the national anthem of Pakistan, Hafeez Jullundhari, went to a shop and said: ‘I am Hafeez.’ The shopkeeper did not recognise him, which upset him. He said: ‘I wrote the national anthem.’ Again the shopkeeper showed no enthusiasm. He then said: ‘I wrote Shah Nama Islam.’ No reaction. Finally he said, ‘I am Abul Asar Hafeez Jullundhari, the writer of the national anthem of Pakistan.’ The shopkeeper suddenly got up and embraced him and said: ‘Sir, I too am from Jullundhar!’

Multan clamps down on actresses

According to the daily Pakistan, the Multan cultural vigilance committee had served notices to Aliza (Dawn Theatre), to Niha (Khayyam Theatre), to Anita (Starlet Theatre) and to Anila (Sangam Theatre) for violating the ‘charter of decency.’ They were asked to present themselves at the office of DDO Multan city to clarify their position. Another actress, Nida (Khayyam Theatre), was served a last warning after which she would be banned in the whole of the Punjab. She was famous through her CDs too.

How Zubaida Begum was killed

Columnist Hamid Mir wrote in the Jang that Zubaida Begum of Dir Bala in the NWFP stood for her union council election in 2001 and was elected unopposed despite reservations from the elders. She was a teacher and a social worker and was quite popular with the women. She organised the local women and was able to improve the roads and sanitary conditions of her constituency. In 2005, she was popular enough to fight the district nazim election but the elders warned her against taking part. She did not obey them and was gunned down in July 2005 along with her daughter.

Justice Shah and Zia’s PCO

According to Dr Pervez Parwazi writing in the monthly Naya Zamana (September 2005), Justice (Retd) Nasim Hassan Shah, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, in his memoirs said that he swore under the PCO of General Zia because he had 15 years of service left as a judge. He thus implied that great judges like Fakhruddin G Ibrahim and Dorab Patel did not take oath under Zia and resigned because they had only three-fours left before reaching the retiring age.

Ascension of the Prophet PBUH

According to Khabrain in the month Rajab, the Holy Prophet PBUH was taken by the angel Jibreel from Makka to Kaaba where he was washed in Zamzam. Then he was taken to Madina on a flying animal called Burraq where he was to migrate two years later. After that he was taken to mount Sinai where Moses had talked with God. After that he was taken to Bethlehem where Christ was born. On the way he heard a voice calling him. He ignored it. Jibreel told him it was the voice of Judaism. Then he heard another voice calling him. He ignored it too. Jibreel told him it was the voice of Christianity. After that a beautiful women called him but he ignored her too. Jibreel said it was the worldly pleasures. After that a man wanted to meet him. He too was ignored because he was Satan himself.

Hindu couple in ‘trubbel’

According to the Nawa-e-Waqt, a Hindu couple in Swabi NWFP had been taken away to an unknown place for investigation of the charge against them of desecrating the Quran, for which there is life imprisonment. Chaman Lal and his wife Krishna were seen by some people throwing the Quran in the fields. After that, a mob attacked their house, beat them up and registered a case of blasphemy against them. The Hindu man was supposed to have converted to Islam and then reconverted to Hinduism on being rebuked by his wife. This angered the Muslims. Although not a law, reconverting from Islam is punishable by death.

Prophet PBUH and the heavens

According to Khabrain, the Prophet PBUH found the first heaven locked. After Jibreel got the door open, the Prophet PBUH was greeted by angels and men, amongst whom was one extremely well-shaped man who was identified as Adam. Adam looked to his right and smiled because on that side were his good progeny; then he looked to his left and cried because on that side were his misguided progeny. Then the Prophet PBUH saw people cutting a crop that would not end: these were people who did jihad. After that there were people with large bellies with snakes inside. They were the usurers. There were people eating rotten meat. They were disloyal spouses. There were women hanging by their breast. They were unfaithful wives with bastard children.

Prophet PBUH in Jerusalem

According to Khabrain, Burrak flew the Prophet PBUH to Jerusalem where he tied his mount in the same place as that where the other prophets tied theirs. In the Haikal of Solomon, all the prophets of the past were present. They lined up to say namaz after him the moment he arrived. He was then given three cups: water, wine and milk. He chose the cup of milk, whereupon Jibreel congratulated him for choosing the way of Nature. After that, the Prophet PBUH was given a ladder (mi’raj) to climb towards Heaven.

Imran Khan’s political immaturity

According to Khabrain, Imran Khan was a sporting icon who became the beloved of the nation as a social worker and philanthropist, but he then had a revelation and became a born-again Muslim. He formed a party in 1996 and began losing elections and now had only one seat of his own to his Insaf Party. His appeal in the middle class had declined because he voted steadily for the reactionary mullahs in the National Assembly under the influence of a sufi saint who met him at a dinner 17 years ago. He had supported the clergy on South Waziristan’s anti-Al Qaeda operations and the madrassa reform. He opposed mixed marathons, and relied on the infamous Newsweek story, leading the attack on the insult to the Quran, and getting a number of agitating people in Afghanistan killed.

Prophet PBUH meets other prophets
According to Khabrain, the Prophet during mi’raj met Christ on the second heaven. On the third heaven he met Yusuf, on the fourth Idris and on the fifth Haroon. On the sixth heaven he met Moses. On the seventh heaven he saw baitul ma’mur where he was greeted by Abraham.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan ordered firing

Speaking to the Nawa-e-Waqt magazine, PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan said that when he was interior minister, the Salman Rushdie affair arose in the UK. The clerics got out a mob in Islamabad which was advancing towards the embassies and consular sections of the city. He said an agreement was reached between the mob and the police after which he returned to parliament. Meanwhile, hooligans from the mob attacked one embassy and the diplomats rang up the presidency saying that their lives were in danger. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan then took over and it was under his charge that the police started firing on the mob.

SP relies on Sura Yaseen

According to the Nawa-e-Waqt, SP Faisalabad Khalid Abdullah, accused of kidnapping a man and making him disappear and raping his wife, held a special radd-e-bala (exorcism) in his house with the help of a group of clerics who read the Quranic verse Sura Yaseen in the house. After they were done, the SP distributed thousands of rupees among them. The SP had a record of misconduct and frequent suspensions from rank.

What MNAs cost Pakistan

Writing in the Jang, Irshad Haqqani stated that out of the 342 members of the National Assembly in Pakistan, one was a billionaire, 156 crore-patti, and 183 lakh-patti. These people spent from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore on their elections to win their seats. During the last financial year their allowances were raised by one hundred per cent, from Rs 17,500 to Rs 38,000. In all, the state spent Rs 10 crore annually on them.

Meera and Khar

Writing in the daily Pakistan, Khwaja Pervez stated that Meera was a simple but beautiful girl who wanted to marry India’s great and very rich actor Shahrukh Khan. But the news was hardly digested when someone said that she was politician Lion of Punjab Ghulam Mustafa Khar’s out-of-wedlock daughter. She replied that Khar used to frequent her home and that she called him daddy, which gave away the secret of Khar’s old age. Ex-chief minister Punjab Khar had married many times but found no joy, his ex-wife Tehmina Durrani having finally given joy to ex-chief minister Punjab Shehbaz Sharif instead.

Israel not acceptable even in parliament

Quoted in the daily Pakistan, Imran Khan said that he would not accept recognition of Israel even if parliament approved it. It would be against the idea of Jinnah’s Pakistan and that Musharraf had to no right to go against the wishes of the umma. In reply, culture minister Muhammad Ali Durrani told Khabrain that some people didn’t mind marrying Jewish women but protested Pakistan communicating with Israel.

‘I know Aliya Honey and Tehmina Durrani!’

Writing in Khabrain, Shaukat Hussain Shaukat said that he knew Tehmina Durrani from her background, not because of Shehbaz Sharif. She was the daughter of one Samina Durrani who was married to a Mr Durrani who ran the PIA. Samina belonged to ‘the street’ the same way Shehbaz Sharif’s ex-wife Aliya Honey did. Aliya was the daughter of a Kakkezai resident Manzoor of Royal Park, famous for girls who took part in films.

What Palestinian state?

Writing in the Nawa-e-Waqt, Irfan Siddiqi stated that Pakistan’s making of its recognition of Israel conditional upon the creation of a Palestinian state would be tantamount to accepting only 15 per cent of the original territory belonging to the Arabs as a state for the Palestinians. It would be an open-air prison for the featherless birds called Palestinian Arabs. They will flap their useless wings in the grip of savage Israeli soldiers, and Pakistan would be filling colours in the sketch drawn by the accursed (makrooh) Americans.

Fake mystic breaks out in English
According to Khabrain, one fake mystical dabba pir on the bank of Ravi in Lahore was deftly depriving poor people of their cash. He was mostly promising children to barren women. In one case, he had taken Rs 20,000 for getting a woman pregnant with a baby but failed, after which the husband protested. But the mystic told his audience that his father-in-law was an even bigger mystic because he brought down the aircraft of an Englishman with one gesture. When the reporter tried to ask him tricky questions, he broke out in English to get rid of him. Most people rely on English to get out of trouble.

[/b]Fair elections don’t suit Pakistan[/b]

Writing in the Jang, Syed Anwar Qidwai stated that the local government polls were not found to be fair and transparent in all the centres in Pakistan. But polls were never fair in the past either. In 1951 the Punjab had provincial elections in which Mian Daultana swept a jhurloo through the province capturing ballot boxes to keep his opponent Mamdot out, whom he had already deposed with the help of prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan. In 1954, provincial polls were fair in East Pakistan but that led to the dismissal of the government there. In 1970 the national election was fair but the country was broken up.

Chief secretaries exchange blows

According to Nawa-e-Waqt, chief secretary Punjab Kamran Rasul had been removed suddenly from his job and sent on leave as a climax to the quarrel between two groups of bureaucrats in Punjab. Rasul was opposed by the Randhawa Group which finally got the upper hand. Kamran Rasul group comprised P&D chairman Sibtain Fazl Haleem, secretary schools Imtiaz Tajwar and secretary health Rashida Malik. Former chief secretary Hafeez Akhtar Randhawa was made head of Bank of Punjab after retirement, but Kamran Rasul as chief secretary did not give him his entitlements, on which the two fell out. At the dinner party of the irrigation secretary, Randhawa questioned Rasul, then threw him to the ground and beat him up. (After that secretary National Security Council Tariq Aziz forced Randhawa to resign.) As Kamran Rasul wept, fellow bureaucrat Salman Siddiq tried to make him understand that he had made mistakes, whereupon Rasul threatened to throw Siddiq out of the province too. Salman Siddiq thereafter got grade 22 but Rasulunsuccessfully tried to send him out. After that he sent chairman P&D Salman Ghani out. Rasul also acted against home secretary Hassan Wasim Afzal and his bureaucrat wife, which orders were rescinded by the chief minister. Kamran Rasul was thwarted by the rival group in his efforts to go to Asian Development Bank. Salman Siddiq secretary finance was now new chief secretary.

Relations with Israel and Nawaz Sharif

Columnist Javed Chaudhry wrote in Jang that, starting with Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan was contacting Israel through its diplomats. It began with Pakistan’s first foreign minister Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan and reached a height with General Zia who told the Arabs they should recognise Israel. Later Benazir Bhutto continued these contacts and under Nawaz Sharif ambassador to the US, Syeda Abida Hussain, made a public suggestion that Pakistan should recognise Israel. In answer, Shehbaz Sharif told Nawa-e-Waqt that Nawaz Sharif hated Israel so much that when he heard in 1998 that Israel could attack Pakistan he could not sleep all night because of rage.

‘Neelam pari’ of democracy ready to be gang-raped

Writing in Jang, Irshad Haqqani quoted an officer saying that he (Irshad) was insisting on dreaming of the neelam pari of democracy which was in fact ready to be gang-raped in the courts of tribal chiefs (sardar) and the wealthy (zardar) of Pakistan. Constitution in Pakistan was a tissue paper for the politicians and others to wipe their dirty hands on.

Two enemy embassies

Writing in Nawa-e-Waqt Dr Zahur Ahmad Azhar stated that if Pakistan recognised Israel then Islamabad will have two enemy embassies. Indian embassy already existed although India did not accept Pakistan from the heart and was always busy trying to undo it. Now India was happy that Pakistan had begun talking to Israel. It is happy that another embassy in Islamabad would be busy doing what the Indian embassy already does.

Quaid-Iqbal differences

According to Dr Saleem Akhtar in Nawa-e-Waqt magazine Allama Iqbal believed in separate electorates in Punjab and therefore quarrelled with the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Ali Jauhar who wanted to compromise on the principle to get weightage for Muslims at the all-India level. In Punjab, under limited suffrage, Muslim vote was only 40 percent, and under joint electorates Muslims would have lost their majority dominance.

Owais Ghani Governor Balochistan

Writing in Khabrain Hafiz Sanaullah stated that governor Balochistan Owais Ghani was from the family of Pakistan’s great politician Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. Nishtar belonged to the Kakar tribe. Owais Ghani owned a factory before he decided to enter politics. He came to see the columnist in Peshawar with the nephew of former army chief, Waheed Kakar. Later Owais joined Imran Khan for some time but soon got disenchanted. He then to became a minister in the first government Musharraf set up in the NWFP under General Shafiq. Because of his upright character Owais was then made governor Balochistan.

MMA politicians involved in terrorism

Editorialising on Waziristan terrorism Khabrain stated that MMA’s Maulana Sadiq Noor was found to be involved in acts of terrorism against the Pakistan army in Waziristan. Maulana Noor MNA was absconding after his links with the terrorist Abdullah Mehsud were uncovered by the army.

Officer faints after smelling jihadi bottle

According to Khabrain Lahore police caught three terrorists while they were preparing to blow up a number of buildings in the city. They were caught with explosive material at Lari Adda. Their explosives also contained a small bottle which a police officer opened out of curiosity. It contained poisonous gas. The police officer fainted after smelling the fumes. The three terrorists carried jihadi literature with them.

Literacy in Punjab

According to Jang literacy rates were low in South Punjab. For instance, Mianwali, considered to be backward, had 48 percent literate population, the same as Sheikhupura near Lahore, but Rajanpur had the lowest literacy rate in the province at 31 percent. Rawalpindi had the highest literacy rate at 70 percent, followed by Lahore at 67 percent, Sialkot at 66 percent, Jhelum 65 percent, Chakwal 62 and Gujranwala 61 percent. The Seraiki-speaking region had a generally low literacy rate.

These ‘roshan khayal’ NGOs

Columnist Abdul Qadir Hassan wrote in Jang that he had always told the Musharraf government that NGOs were not loyal to Pakistan but it had paid no attention. The NGOs were funded by foreign states and were therefore loyal only to them. They had no interest in the welfare of Pakistan. But any criticism of the NGOs was considered a criticism of roshan khayali because all these NGOs were considered roshan khayal. These NGOs were not mindful of how the women in the West were being played around with, but have become touchy about women in Pakistan, and to highlight their activity, they had chosen the police as rapist. They get these women to come on TV and count the number of men who had raped them. But President Musharraf himself has found out what these NGOs were really up to.

Osama came to Pakistan!

Quoted in daily Pakistan an Afghan foreign office spokesperson Lutfullah Mashal said that after Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden bribed warlord Hazrat Ali (who was with Americans) to get him safely across the border to Pakistan. He came to Parachinar but found himself unsafe and returned to Khost in Afghanistan, where he was hiding now. He said America trusted the wrong warlord.

Stampede for local body jobs

According to Jang 109 important personalities in Punjab were trying to get local government posts. Five MNAs were going to leave their seats to fight elections for district nazims while two MPAs were getting ready to fight for district or tehsil nazim posts. In all, 109 assemblymen were either pursuing the posts for themselves or for their close relatives. Those who were candidates for posts of district nazim were: Col (Retd) Ghulam Rasul Sahi, Mumtaz Ahmad Mutiana, Inamul Haq Piracha, Tehmina Dasti, Ahmad Sharaqpuri, (all MNAs) wanted to stand for the posts of district nazim. Among the MPAs Chaudhry Riaz Asghar, Rana Mash’hood also wanted district nazim posts. Son of speaker National Assembly, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, Aamir Amir Hussain, was contesting the nazim post in Sialkot. Col Sahi contesting in Faisalabad was the brother of speaker Punjab Assembly. Jamal Leghari, son of Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari MNA was contesting for nazim, Dera Ghazi Khan. Chaudhry Shafaat Ali fighting for nazim Gujrat was a cousin ofPunjab chief minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi. Former chief minister Manzur Wattoo’s son Khurram Jehangir Wattoo was candidate for tehsil nazim in Dipalpur. Relatives of two former chief ministers Nakai and Afzal Hayat were vying for nazim posts in various parts of Punjab. Federal minister Chaudhry Shehbaz Hussain’s son Javed Hussain was elected nazim tehsil Dina unopposed while Shehbaz’s nephew was contesting for district nazim Jhelum. Federal minister Tahir Iqbal’s elder relative General (Retd) Majeed Malik was up for nazim Chakwal. Because of the blind competition party discipline broke down and the ruling PML declared the province open for all party contestants.

UN Charter is against Islam

According to the daily Pakistan, an organisation called the World Islamic Forum held its session in Lahore and decided that the UN Charter should be changed because it was against Islam. Maulana Isa Mansuri and Zahidul Rashdi put out a memorandum that they would present to the UN to ask it to change the charter and put Muslims inside the Security Council according to their population in the world. They also asked the UN to allow atomic power to all states and give veto to the Muslim states.

Jews are ‘kanjoos’

Writing in the Jang, Mehmood Sham stated that as he began to sit at the table arranged by the World Jewish Council for Pakistani journalists, he noticed that there were only sandwiches, tea and cold drinks for the Pakistani journalists. He remembered that Jews were famous for kanjoosi (miserliness). Behind the mikes on the stage, the backdrop was of black cloth; just like the black past of Pakistan-Israel relations and possibly future also.

Indian clerics threaten Sania Mirza

According to Khabrain, Indian Muslim-born tennis star Sania Mirza was warned by the clerics of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind that she will have to wear a shalwar in place of her shorts to play tennis in future or they will take action against her. On this, the Indian government increased Ms Mirza’s security. She said that she was determined to play in Calcutta but she did not comment on the clergy’s threat to stop her from playing if she did not play in a shalwar.

Indian films in ‘aaloo’ bags

According to the Jang, the film industry in Pakistan was protesting that a flood of Indian films had overtaken Pakistani cinemas and Pakistani films did not stand a chance against the big-budget Indian movies unless the government clamped down on the cinemas. The Indian films now came packed in bags of aaloo (potatoes) being imported from India to meet the demand for potatoes in Pakistan. The new import was also indirectly meeting the demand for Indian films in Pakistan. The film producers complained that it was not possible to detect cans of Indian films in thousands of potato bags piled up like mountains on the Lahore border with India.

Exit from paradise

Purple patch columnist Irfan Siddiqi stated in the Nawa-e-Waqt that the meetings between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York signalled to us that we should turn back from fruitless (baisamar) highways of deprivation (lahaasil) but it appears that we have not heeded the signal. Perhaps it is no longer in our power to do so. Two more meetings between the two were in the offing, two more communiqués would be issued and the bilateral relations will advance from piaz aur lehsen (onion and garlic) and goats, while the paradise of Kashmir burns dhar-dhar (fiercely) in the fire of India’s fury and our ‘policylessness.’

Iqbal coined ‘Pakistan’

Writing in the Nawa-e-Waqt, Prof Fateh Muhammad Malik wrote that it was Allama Iqbal, not Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, who wrote the famous pamphlet Now or Never in 1932, in which the name Pakistan was proposed for the new Muslim state. Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was one of the students Iqbal knew in London. Once, when Rehmat Ali went to see him and asked what name would he give to the Muslim state he had thought of, Allama Iqbal replied that he would call it Pakistan.

Dr Riffat Hassan in ‘trubbel’

According to Khabrain, Islamic lady scholar Dr Riffat Hassan read a paper in a gathering in New York which said blasphemous things about the Quran when she pointed out that the Holy Quran did not mention the name of Hawwa, nor did it say that Hawwa was created out of the rib of Adam. Pakistani journalists, led by ARY’s Dr Shahid Masood, objected to her deviating from the Quran and said that her version was against the Islamic tradition. Dr Riffat also said that Adam was a Hebrew word meaning earth and the Holy Quran meant both men and women when it referred to Adam. Also, the Quran stated that men and women were created from the same essence. Her point was that the Quran believed in the equality of men and women. The journalists decided that the matter could only be decided in the light of fiqh. Khabrain also published the views of the ulema who said that hadith did refer to Hawwa and Adam as separate people.

Imran Khan on Qazi Hussain Ahmad

Speaking at the inauguration of Asghar Khan’s book, Imran was quoted in Jang as saying that Qazi Hussain Ahmad will not be successful in his movement against the government because the people in the army who used to back him are no longer backing him now. He said Pakistani foreign minister talking to the Israeli foreign minister was like sticking a knife in the back of the Palestinians.

America will ask for more!

Quoted in the Nawa-e-Waqt, ex-foreign minister Agha Shahi said that if Pakistan went on bowing before America’s tough conditions, they will only be increased. To appease India, the US had set aside its own laws and this it did to oppose the increasing Chinese influence on the region. He said that Pakistanis should stop asking the US to arbitrate between India and Pakistan. He said that international affairs turned on power; and military power was the only thing that counted.

Law minister slaps waiter

According to Khabrain, federal law minister Wasi Zafar said that he merely called the waiter loudly at a hotel, which felt like a slap but he had not actually slapped him. The news which earlier appeared in the press stated that he had slapped a waiter on the face. Mr Zafar stated that the waiter had brought his meal late, upon which he had protested while the waiter kept saying that he had not brought his meal late. Earlier, Mr Zafar had watched his son brutally beat up a passenger at the Karachi airport.

Eve was born of Adam’s rib!

Writing in Khabrain, Azam Sultan Suhrawardi stated that the clerics of Lahore had condemned the lecture of Pakistani scholar Dr Riffat Hassan, which said that there was no mention in the Quran of the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. The clerics said that if a fact became accepted by Muslims down the centuries, it becomes truth and anyone denying it was apostate.

Stuffing the parliament in Afghanistan

Columnist Hamid Mir wrote in the Jang that talking to an Afghan leader in Kabul, he discovered that the old Jamiat Islami of Ustad Rabbani had split on the vote to President Karzai. Yunus Qanuni split from Rabbani and created his own party and was in the process of sending 150 of his own candidates to the 149-seat Volesi Jirga in the September 2005 elections in Afghanistan. Qanuni was being funded by Iran to ensure that the coming parliament is biased against President Karzai, who has no party of his own. Hamid Mir was told that judges in Afghanistan were appointed after payment of money by the judges, which the judges later made up through corruption.

Muslim Yuhanna and English team

According to Khabrain, Pakistani batsman Muhammad Yusuf will add to excitement during the forthcoming cricket tour of England. When he was Yusuf Yuhanna, he used to make a cross on his breast as a Christian in the cricket field. Now he will have to fall down in sajda to prove that he has indeed become a Muslim.

NGOs and Musharraf

Writing in the Nawa-e-Waqt, Ataur Rehman stated that Musharraf had embraced the liberal and enlightened intellectuals and NGOs when he came to power. These liberal enlightened intellectuals were once supporters of the Soviet Union but now they had become slaves of the United States because of the money they received from it. After Musharraf gave them shelter, these NGOs threw away their caution and revealed their total slavery of the US. Now Musharraf was angry with the NGOs and their enlightened ladies, while Pakistan’s secular intellectuals looked like the lost sheep of Israel who didn’t know their direction.

Asghar Khan and four judges

Quoted in the Jang, Air Marshall (Retd) Asghar Khan said that the mystery of the murder of his son Umar Asghar Khan was still unresolved. He said that one after the other, three judges hearing the case of his son’s murder in Karachi had retired; now he was looking forward to the appointment of a fourth judge so that the hearings could start again.

Jews in Pakistan

According to Prof Adil Najam writing in the daily Pakistan, there was a Jewish synagogue in Karachi which was destroyed in 1960 to make place for a plaza. There was also a Jewish graveyard looked after by a Jewish lady. This graveyard was also destroyed to make place for a plaza. The Jewish lady was promised an apartment in the plaza after its completion but she never got it and vainly tried to approach the government to help her. The Jews left Pakistan in great misery after 1947.

Text books conspiracy

Quoted in the Nawa-e-Waqt, MMA leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad said that Musharraf was the most hated leader in the Islamic world. He said that Hazrat Fatima had been taken out of the school textbooks and in her place, Bilqis Edhi was being taught to the new generation. He was addressing the Friday congregation at Mansura in Lahore.

Aamir Mughal said...

"Alleged Geniuses of Pakistan Army"

We have reached to this present state of affairs because of our brilliant Generals of Pakistan Army who are the worse enemy of any Civil Society in Pakistan. There is a time when you speak and there is a time when you take a hike but there is no such time for General Retd. Hameed Gul who again and again jumps from this private TV channel to that channel for telling people of Pakistan about liberty, freedom and last but not least about Islam, his latest effort was on AAJ TV in an interview with Naeem Bukhari, I just want to ask you headed ISI, tell us something about those Sectarian Organization and Ethnic Organizations you created for killing innocent people of this country in streets like dogs. I am quoting their pearls of wisdom, read and lament:

A retired Brigadier is of the view that, ‘India has set for itself a mission of re-establishing the Akhand Bharat with borders on Madagascar, Hindu Kush and Malacca straits.

Lt. General (r) Hameed Gul addressing a seminar stated that, ‘at present Pakistan has two enemies one physical - India and the other ideological - Israel.

A Colonel states, “to mature Akhand Bharat dream, India is too inclined and capable to sacrifice the innocent civilian if it can bring damage to Pakistan’s interests’.

A Lt. General advocates Pakistan’s improved relations with Iran and Afghanistan because of Indian threat not only to Pakistan but to entire Muslim world.

A Lt. Colonel is of the view that India supported Northern Alliance during Afghan civil war because ‘she had long been seeking to thwart Pakistan’s ambition to create a defensive Islamic block stretching from Pakistan to Central Asia’.

Major General (r) Ghulam Omar (He was a close confidant of General Yahya Khan, secretary of National Security Council and a key member of the military regime in 1971) with all the hindsight in 1993 has this to say about 1971 crisis, “I swear by God that Pakistan was broken by Bhutto, Mujib, Indira, Soviet Union and America. It was a conspiracy hatched by all of them together”.

Brigadier (r). Amanullah’s (He has served as ISI head of the Sindh province and currently secretary of Benazir Bhutto) statement. In an interview, while talking about nuclear strike against India, he stated, “They have acted so badly towards us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson”. He went on to add that, “Believe me, if I were in charge, I would have already done it’. He then chillingly gives us his death wish that, “Before I die, I hope I should see it”.

A Lt. General and former Director General (DG) of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) pointing to Kashmir struggle stated, “This freedom struggle had resulted in the suction of very large-scale Indian regular and para-military forces, creating a major strategic imbalance in Indian groupings to such an extent where it is no longer remained possible for it to fight even a defensible battle, what to talk of any offensive across the international borders’.

A defence analyst’s comments that, ‘when the Pakistan missiles were test-fired in early May, sheer panic swept through the Indian population at the belated realization that no Indian city was safe from a Pakistan counter-attack’.

General Musharraf’s statements after easing of recent tensions that we don’t care about the de-escalation and we will teach Indians a lesson fall into the second category.

Ayub Khan who advocated close defence ties with US and even provided air force base for spying mission lamented that US was not a friend but master.

Another general who was involved at the highest level of close Pakistani defence and intelligence ties with US in 80s, in the post-retirement enlightment phase sees that Islamic world is ‘exploited and blackmailed by the developed countries’, ‘targeted countries are subjected to coercion, technological barriers, sanctions, media trial and economic hurdles’ and ‘attempts are also made to create political divisions within the Islamic Ummah’.

A retired Air Marshal complains that Indian leadership ‘by crafty rope tricks have managed to convince the Bush and Blair administrations’ about their point of view on Kashmir and ‘Washington and London believe almost everything they say’.

A Major General complains that , “Our allies have displayed no signs of helping Pakistan in solving our basic and most crucial problem”.

One analyst a year after the Kargil adventure is of the view that as ‘the Pakistani military used forces already deployed in the area to occupy the heights along the LoC’ and ‘the move itself was simply an offensive-defence, which did not constitute crossing over to the Indian side of LoC - but simply along the LoC’.

In the same article the author states that the forced disengagement ‘caused heavy loss of life for the Pakistan’s Northern Light Infantry’ which ‘led to inevitable frustration within the Armed Forces’.

General Musharraf commenting on recent stand off with India stated, “Sanity demands avoidance of war but at the same time in the pursuit of peace you can’t compromise on honour and dignity so one has to strike a balance maintaining honour and dignity and going for peace also’.

Two examples of senior officers will illustrate the lack of any in-depth knowledge even about their own society.

Lt. General (r) Hameed Gul (Former DG ISI and Corps Commander) refuted the theory of isolation if Pakistan go nuclear by stating that, “Firstly, because it is self-sufficient in food and secondly, because Pakistan is a nuclear state. The difficulty will help Pakistan to unleash a socio-monetary revolution in the country”.

Lt. General (r) Javed Nasir (Former DG ISI) while talking about the potential financial difficulties if nuclear tests were done stated, “what Pakistan will miss in terms of foreign loans? The expatriates and Pakistani nationals within the country will pile up billions of dollars without much problem”.

There is almost a consensus of opinion among the armed forces officers that the Indian airplane hijacking in 1999 was a conspiracy hatched by India to malign Pakistan. One Colonel stated that the hijacking was created by India herself.

Another retired Colonel also is of opinion that, ‘India once again tried the same tactic to revenge her failure in Kargil’.

Brigadier Gulzar Ahmad explaining the role of celestial powers to lessen his troop casualties in 1965 war stated, “There was a hidden hand deflecting the rounds which would otherwise have taken a heavy toll of the advancing troops”.

ISI chief Lt. General Mahmud Ahmad during Pakistani ambassador’s conference ‘reprimanded the ambassadors for not relying ‘on the intercession of Providence’ while analyzing Pakistan’s Afghan policy’.

A former army chief considers the training of thousands of fighters from different countries by United States during 80s as a ‘Divine Will’.

One retired Colonel while commenting on Nawaz Sharif’s attempts to improve relations with India is of the opinion that ‘Our Sharif’s remained more busy in secret sugar deals with Vajpayee’.

One defence commentator chastising civilians stated that, ‘the response of successive governments in Pakistan, to escape the label of ‘terrorist state’, they have shown themselves weak-kneed in reaction, sometimes downright apologetic’.

“the military success of Kargil was totally undermined by the Sharif government’s confused and panicked approach from beginning to end’ and that ‘The pro-US lobby within the Pakistan government panicked Sharif into undertaking a meaningless flight to Washington - leaving everything on the ground in a state of confusion’.

One commentator in 2000 states, “The attitude of Sharif’s government was most dubious right from the very beginning. He was concerned more to divide and weaken the Armed Forces”.

In 1965, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) led by Brigadier Riaz Hussain had a very poor performance. In less than 48 hours after the launching of Operation Gibraltar, ISI lost all its contacts. Instead of any accountability, Brigadier Riaz was promoted to the rank of Major General. Similarly, Director of Military Intelligence, Brigadier Irshad had very little information about the whole exercise let alone a comprehensive strategy. He admitted to then information minister when asked about the nature and purpose of operation so that ministry could project it. He innocently admitted that the beauty of the operation is that ‘even I know very little about the operation’. He rose up the ranks to become Lt. General and lead a Corps. A senior retired Lt. General while commenting about 1965 war is of the view that ‘the reputation of many senior commanders was tarnished and many others would have come to the limelight but intense personal lobbying prevented any meaningful change’.

A defence analyst has summed up the overall attitude of Pakistani military leadership in these words, “...although most of generals have learned how to “play politics” both within the military and in dealing with politicians and bureaucrats, they are often lacking in speculative or conceptual skills, let alone the ability to articulate their ideas in such a way that a mass public would find them intelligible”.

The general despise of Hindus and doubting their capacity of able to give a good fight was almost universal. General Ayub Khan in his letter to C-in-C General Muhammad Musa stated, “as a general rule Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows delivered at the right time and place. Such opportunities should, therefore, be sought and exploited”.

Ayub Khan was of the view that Indian army had expanded too rapidly and lacked disciplined leadership.

The most tragic effect of 1965 war was not military but political which military mind was unable to comprehend. The remarks of an East Pakistani summarize the feelings of Bengalis about 1965 war, “while the West Pakistan was using its American tanks and American planes to fight India for the precious five million Kashmiris, 65 million Bengalis were left to fight with their bare hands if the Indians had attacked us”.

In late 80s, Pakistan policy about Kashmir saw a new direction. The cornerstone of this policy was that ‘Pakistan could only protect itself from India by encouraging its dissolution’.This change was brought due to the heavy influence of the intelligence community of the armed forces. ISI was the main architect of the policy. They were flushed with their recent victory in Afghanistan. Surely, a large number of mid-level officers performed their task in Afghanistan professionally and efficiently which was one of the factors of Soviet withdrawal. They argued that if a superpower can be defeated by guerrillas and then why not India? They didn’t fully evaluated Afghan experience and didn’t learn the lessons of Afghanistan. This lack of detailed analysis resulted in replication of Afghan experience in Kashmir with significant negative fall out both for Kashmir struggle and Pakistan itself. The strategy was two pronged. ‘One, it sought to maximize the cost of occupation for the Indian army in Kashmir and, in the process, bleed it white. Two, it thought it could keep the cost of its own offensive to pittance by sending religiously swayed armed volunteers across the Line of Control’. This ‘privatization of Jehad’ would be the blunder which would come back to haunt them a decade later.

Martial Mind Pakistan Officer Corps thought-process about Defence Columnist Hamid Hussain explores the Pakistan military mind-set.


Aamir Mughal said...

A slap on the face of the so-called Pakistani Right Wingers [Read Opportunists] who have turned Pakistan into a Sectarian State:

Ulema and Pakistan Movement [Courtesy Mr Abdus Sattar Ghazali]

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent --Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami [1]-- were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty' s idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.

The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]

The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century.

It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]

The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was virtually a secular
campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.

Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union: "What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political." [4]

The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.

The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema.

The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar – seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan" . The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam. [6]

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great leader or a great

During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it.

After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept
Maulana Azad as their leader and join the Congress Party.[8]

The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure).

In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:

"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]

Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path." [10]

Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: "Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work."[11]

He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12]

However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.

The Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]

In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[ 19]

Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]

Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact movement failed.

It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for Pakistan.

Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent. [22]

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]

The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25]


1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others hastened to Pakistan to lend a helping hand. If they had not been able to save the Muslims from Pakistan they must now save Pakistan from the Muslims. Among them was Maulana Abul Aala Maududi, head of the Jamat-i-Islami, who had been bitterly opposed to Pakistan." Mohammad Ayub Khan, Friends not
Masters, P-202

2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66

3. Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, p79-80

4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938

5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28

6. Ibid. p-54

7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam' s marriage to a Parsi girl.

8. Munir Report, p-256

9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25

10. The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37

11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23

12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368

13. Ibid., p-368

14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam Trust, Lahore, p-614

15. Ibid. p-314

16. Hasan (rose) from Basrah, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Rome, Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries, What an ignoramus regarding the position of Muhammad! Take thyself to Muhammad, because he is the totality of Faith, And if thou does not reach him, all (thy knowledge) is Bu Lahaism.

17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that "it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162

18. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, op. cit., p-328

19. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p-237

20. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics p-334

21. Justice Sayed Shameem Hussain Kadri - Creation of
Pakistan - Army Book Club, Rawalpindi ,1983 -- p-414

22. Ayub Khan, op. cit., p-200

23. According to Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, the present state of affairs of the Moslem world. Dr. Iqbal said: "It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting the social horizon of its members." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p-159) Dr. Iqbal had apparently in mind the following verse from the Holy Quran: O Mankind ! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. (49:13)

24. Qureshi, op. cit., p-378

25. Afzal Iqbal, Islamization in Pakistan, p-26

26. Ayub Khan, op. cit.,p-202

27. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1963, p-173

28. Afzal Iqbal, op. cit., p-29

29. Qureshi, op. cit., p-383

30. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in History, p-215

31. Munir Report, p-205

32. Ibid. p-218

33. Ibid. p-219

34. Anita M. Weiss, Reassertion of Islam in Pakistan, p-2

35. Leonard Binder, Islam and Politics in Pakistan, University of California Press, 1961, p-29

36. Anita M. Weiss, p-21

37. Ibid. p-21

38. When Pakistan appeared on the map, they (Ulema) found no place for themselves in India and they all came to Pakistan and brought with them the curse of Takfir (calling one another infidel). Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p-38

39. Prof. Rafi-ullah Shehab - The Quaid-e-Azam and the Ulema - The Pakistan Times, Islamabad 25.12.1986.

40. Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post, Peshawar, 9.5.1991

41. Ibid.

Aamir Mughal said...

Ideological Mess created by the Pakistani Right Wingers:

The Subtle Subversion: The state of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan


By: Qazi Hussain Ahmed Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan


Isharat from ‘Tarjuman Al Quran’ April ‘99 LAHORE DECLARATION by Prof. Khurshid Ahmad


Now wait for the worse because even worse News Jamat-e-Islami Chief has been selected i.e. Munawwar Hassan [as per him all those who have Secular Political Beliefs, are not good Muslims]

Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology and Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 1


It was late summer in 1984 or 1985. I received a surprise call from a friend in Pakistan. We had been friends since kindergarten but our destiny had carried us on different trajectories. However, to date we have managed to keep abreast of what is going on in eachother’s lives. When my friend called me he said that he was in New Jersey, USA. He said he was sent here from the then President Zia-ul-Haq. I was very impressed that he was sent here by the President and conveyed my thoughts to him. He gloomily said that that he may not be able to meet the goal of his visit.

Zia came to the dinner that evening. No not the President Zia-ul-Haq but Zia Hussain my childhood friend. In our conversation that evening he shared that he was the General Manager of Oxford University Press (Pakistan) - a Publishing house in Karachi. Their parent company in New York had published the biography of the Father of the Nation titled as Jinnah of Pakistan. Though the book was full of unvarnished facts, it was also scholarly honest and unbiased. Most of all; the image of Jinnah that came through the book was of a once in a century hero- much like George Washington of the US.

Amazingly enough the book got banned in Pakistan. President Zia-ul-Haq, on the other hand, not only wanted the book be published, but he also wanted it to be the core of all undergraduate studies in the Universities across Pakistan. In his mind President Zia could not smudge Jinnah Sahib’s image. So the mention of Jinnah Sahib ’s indulgence with whiskey and eating forbidden flesh was unacceptable to him. It had to be excluded from the book. This was Zia Hussain’s mission. He had to convince Mr. Stanley Wolpert to expunge a part of Mr. Jinnah’s Life, in order to make him a “True Hero”.

Zia Hussain’s mission failed. Wolpert didn’t even feel the need to meet Mr. Hussain. His publisher Oxford University Press and Zia Hussain were told firmly and politely (which was his style as I later found out) that the book was written to document the life of a Great Man. A part of President Zia’s message contained the temptation of selling millions of copies in Pakistan as it was proposed to be part of a perpetual curriculum of all the Universities in Pakistan. Mr. Wolpert alluded that having written many books, text and otherwise; and being a Professor at Stanford University (He is now Professor Emeritus there), he was financially more than secure and riches were not his goal.

Years later Mr. Wolpert came to Asia Society in New York City, to introduce his book Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan. I had the good fortune to meet him. He had flown in from California; and had directly arrived at the Asia Society. It was dinner time. A few friends and I invited him for dinner. He graciously accepted. We instantly arranged for a catered Pakistani meal at Tariq Malik’s place. We spent five unforgettable and precious hours with Mr. Wolpert. In an informal setting one could see that he himself is a great man. No pretensions, but very proper, gentlemanly, polite and firm. We talked about ZAB, Nehru and Gandhi. He has since then written books about all of them. He was respectful talking of his subjects but there was a special respect for the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. In the conversation, more often he called him the Quaid than Mr. Jinnah. He said that no one suggested to him to write about Jinnah Sahib. It was his own admiration that led him to research and write about this remarkable hero. I was left wondering whether great historians have heroes too? And heroes from far off lands?


Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 2

Islam was used ! So this whole Ideology Drama was a farce rather hoodwinking the whole Muslim Population

The strength of the Muslim League in the Muslim-majority provinces was going to be put to the test during the 1945-46 election campaign. Consequently in the public meetings and mass contact campaigns the Muslim League openly employed Islamic sentiments, slogans and heroic themes to rouse the masses. This is clearly stated in the fortnightly confidential report of 22 February 1946 sent to Viceroy Wavell by the Punjab Governor Sir Bertrand Glancy:

The ML (Muslim League) orators are becoming increasingly fanatical in their speeches. Maulvis (clerics) and Pirs (spiritual masters) and students travel all round the Province and preach that those who fail to vote for the League candidates will cease to be Muslims; their marriages will no longer be valid and they will be entirely excommunicated… It is not easy to foresee what the results of the elections will be. But there seems little doubt the Muslim League, thanks to the ruthless methods by which they have pursued their campaign of *Islam in danger* will considerably increase the number of their seats and unionist representatives will correspondingly decline. (L/P & J/5/249, p. 155).

“Two years ago at Simla I said that the democratic parliamentary system of government was unsuited to India. I was condemned everywhere in the Congress press. I was told that I was guilty of disservice to Islam because Islam believes in democracy. So far as I have understood Islam, it does not advocate a democracy which would allow the majority of non-Muslims to decide the fate of the Muslims. We cannot accept a system of government in which the non-Muslims merely by numerical majority would rule and dominate us.” [speech by Mr Jinnah delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on March 6, 1940]

“Then, generally speaking, democracy has different patterns even in different countries of the West. Therefore, naturally I have reached the conclusion that in India where conditions are entirely different from those of the Western countries, the British party system of government and the so-called democracy are absolutely unsuitable.” [speech by Mr Jinnah delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on March 6, 1940]

“Democratic systems based on the concept of a homogeneous nation such as England are very definitely not applicable to heterogeneous countries such as India and this simple fact is the root cause of all of India’s constitutional ills.” [speech by Mr Jinnah delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on March 6, 1940]

Raja Sahib Mahmudabad, a Shia, wrote in 1939 to the historian Mohibul Hassan:

When we speak of democracy in Islam it is not democracy in the government but in the cultural and social aspects of life. Islam is totalitarian—there is no denying about it. It is the Koran that we should turn to. It is the dictatorship of the Koranic laws that we want—and that we will have—but not through non-violence and Gandhian truth. (quoted in Hasan, 1997: 57-8)

Raja Sahib was severely reprimanded by Jinnah, but the point is that such ideas were not altogether alien to Muslim League stalwarts. I think an additional reason why the Muslim League could not have allowed such ideas to be associated with its ideology and objective, at least at the highest formal level, was that they would have undermined its position as the moderate voice of Muslims vis-à-vis the Indian National Congress and the British government. The great skill of Jinnah was that until the last moment he did not explain what his idea of Pakistan was. It is not surprising that his 11 August 1947 speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in which he spelt out the vision of a secular and democratic Pakistan surprised many of his followers. His sympathetic biographer Stanley Wolpert has recorded this point succinctly (Wolpert, 1993: 340).

The strategy not to discuss the ideology of Pakistan provided Jinnah with considerable flexibility and room to manoeuvre his campaign for Pakistan as and when the situation required. The task was formidable and the adversaries strong and well organised. Thus in late January 1947 when the Muslim League launched its direct action campaign in the Punjab against the government of Khizr Tiwana, the Punjab governor, Sir Evan Jenkins, met the visiting all-India Muslim League leader Khawaja Nazimuddin on 18 February and later wrote in his fortnightly report to the viceroy:

In our first meeting Khawaja Nazim-ud-Din admitted candidly that he did not know what Pakistan means, and that nobody in the ML knew, so it was difficult for the League to carry on long term negotiations with the minorities. (March 1947: L/P & J/5/250, p. 3/79).

Similar practices were prevalent in the campaigns in NWFP and Sindh. In his doctoral dissertation, ”India, Pakistan or Pakhtunistan?” Erland Jansson writes:

The Pir of Manki Sharif…founded an organisation of his own, the Anjuman-us-asfia. The organisation promised to support the Muslim League on condition that Shariat would be enforced in Pakistan. To this Jinnah agreed. As a result the Pir of Manki Sharif declared jehad to achieve Pakistan and ordered the members of his anjuman to support the League in the 1946 elections (p. 166).

Jinnah’s letter to to Pir Manki Sharif in which he promised that the Shariah will be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community is quoted in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, Volume 5, 1949, p. 46. Thus from 1940 onwards, the distinction between a Muslim national state and an Islamic state became increasingly blurred, and in the popular mind such distinctions did not matter much. In any case, while the non-Muslims viewed with great apprehension the possibility of a Muslim state that would reduce them to a minority, the minority Shia and Ahmadiyya communities were fearful that it would result in Sunni domination. This is obvious from the correspondence between the Shia leader, Syed Zaheer Ali and Jinnah in July1944. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Council of Action of the All-Parties Shia Conference passed a resolution on 25 December 1945 rejecting the idea of Pakistan. Similarly the Ahmadiyya were also wary and reluctant to support the demand for a separate Muslim state (Report of the Court of Inquiry, 1954: 196). It is only when Sir Zafrulla was won over by Jinnah that the Ahmadis started supporting the demand for Pakistan. To all doubters, Jinnah gave assurances that Pakistan will be a modern Muslim state, neutral on sectarian matters.


Mushirul Hasan, Legacy of a Divided Nation, London: Hurst & Company, London, (1997).

David Gilmartin, Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan, Delhi: Oxford University Press, (1989).

Erland Jansson, India, Pakistan or Pakhtunistan?, Uppsala: Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis, (1981).

Political and Judicial Records L/P & J/5/249, p. 155, London: British Library, (March 1946).

Political and Judicial Records L/P & J/5/250, p. 3/79, London: British Library, (March 1947).

Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953 (also known as Munir Report), Lahore: Government Printing Press, 1954.

‘Resolution adopted by Council of Action of the All-Parties Shaia Conference’, held at Poona, 25 December 1945, in S.R. Bakshi, The Making of India and Pakistan: Ideology of the Hindu Mahasabha and other Political Parties, Vol. 3, New Delhi, Deep & Deep Publications, 1997.

Stanley Wopert, Jinnah of Pakistan, Oxford University Press London, (1993).

The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates,Vol. 5, 1949, Karachi: Government of Pakistan Press, (1949).

Syed Zaheer Ali , ‘Letter to Quaid-e-Azam by Syed Ali Zaheer, July1944 and the Quaid’s reply’ in G. Allana, Pakistan Movement: Historic Documents, Lahore: Islamic Book Service, (1977).

Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 3

As per Quranic Islam all human are equal so why this sympathy only for the Muslims of the Sub-Continent? What about those Hindus and Sikhs who also lost their 'ALL' as well for this madness we call Freedom on 14 August 1947.

Would you call this a rhetoric or cyclical debates?

Act of Jinnah's Favourite Worker i.e. Suhrawardy:

Massacre of Hindus 1946:

Mr. H. S. Sahrawardy, Premier of Bengal, said:

“Muslim India means business.”

How grimly it ‘meant business’ was shown by the Calcutta killing, and was later on shown by Noakhali, N.-W. F. P. and the Punjab.

Mr. Jinnah in a statement issued from Bombay on September 11, 1946 offered to the Hindus the choice between creating Pakistan and forcing a Civil War in the country.

Replying to a question seeking suggestions for the restoration of peace in India, he said:”

“In view of the horrible slaughter in various parts of India, I am of the opinion that the authorities, both Central and Provincial, should take up immediately the question of exchange of population to avoid brutal recurrence of that which had taken place where small minorities have been butchered by the overwhelming majorities.”

Thus, scouting any suggestion that there could be peace and amity in the country, he advocated exchange of population-the uprooting of millions-and as it later turned out to be, of over twelve millions, and the butchering of about a million. This was the direction in which the Muslim League was inevitably leading the country.

What shocked the conscience of India even more than Calcutta, was the large-scale murder, loot, arson, rape, abduction and forced marriage of Hindu women in the Noakhali District of Eastern Bengal. This time the trouble came about in the October of 1946. It appears the League enthusiasts were on the look-out for an area of operation where they could be sure of very little resistance and where they could demonstrate to the Hindus in action as to what was in store for them in case they did not accept the Muslim League demand of Pakistan. In Calcutta the Hindus-although on the first two days they were completely surprised, and reeled under the sudden blow, and lost more than a thousand in killed-yet on the subsequent days they rallied and gave the Muslims as good as they got. The Muslim League perhaps realized the folly of having tried out Calcutta. A better spot should be selected, and this time it was Noakhali and the adjoining area of Eastern Bengal.

The district of Noakhali is almost at the extreme end of Eastern Bengal, surrounded by heavy Muslim majority areas. This district itself has perhaps the lowest percentage of non-Muslim population-the Muslim percentage being as high as 81.35. So, while it was particularly dastardly of the Muslims of this area to have chosen to fall upon the Hindus of this area, it was, from the point of their own scheme, a fit choice; for its very sparse Hindu population could offer little resistance to their onslaught. Attacks on a scale as large as Noakhali also occurred in the district of Tipperah, neighbouring on Noakhali, and with a Muslim population of 77.09%.

As the trouble broke out, for some time the country did not know about it. Noakhali is a far-away part of Bengal, and the Muslim League Ministry of Bengal did not allow the news of the carnage to trickle though as long as they could help it. So, the assailants had it all their own way for several days, unchecked.

Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 4

Prof Asghar Sodai’s verse “Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia - La Ilaha Illallah” was nothing but a cheap slogan and had nothing to do with Pakistan except a Slogan.

The fact is that this oft quoted statement is an election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet - Asghar Saudai. But it was never raised by the platform of the Muslim League. First and the last meeting of All Pakistan Muslim League was held under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam at Karachi's Khaliqdina Hall. During the meeting a man, who called himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that "we have been telling the people Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illallah." "Sit down, sit down," the Quaid shouted back. "Neither I nor my working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim League has ever passed such a resolution wherein I was committed to the people of Pakistan, Pakistan ka matlab....., you might have done so to catch a few votes." This incident is quoted from Daghon ki Barat written by Malik Ghulam Nabi, who was a member of the Muslim League Council. The same incident is also quoted by the Raja of Mehmoudabad. [Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post, Peshawar, 9.5.1991]

One should have no problem with Quadiyanis, Shias or Atheists at all. What I meant to say that Pakistanis should do away with this Figment of Imagination i.e. Mumlekat-e-Khudadad or Ideological State. This nomenclature of Islamic State created problems for Pakistan and people living in Pakistan [particularly Shias and Quadiyanis] instead of solving.

The first resolution in favour of Pakistan in Sindh Assembly was move by a Shia but later that mover of Pakistan Resolution in Sindh Assembly was so thoroughly Fingered by Jinnah that he died as a Traitor [as per record of Sindh Government and Sindh High Court case which is still pending even after his death!], I am referring to Late Ghulam Murtaza Syed i.e. G M Syed [descendant of Pir Syed Haider Shah Kazmi]. By using this Islamic State Nomenclature you would create problem for those who have different interpretation of Islamic State i.e. Minority Sects of Muslims living in Pakistan, therefore this Islamic Notion with Pakistan should away for good and once and for all. If you forgotten General Zia's rampant 'Islamic State' then read the glimpse after the Sindh Assembly Resolution. Mover of Pakistan Resolution i.e. G M Syed in his 2 books had also compared Hajr-e-Aswad [Black Stone in Ka'aba] with Shiv Lingum [Ref: 1 - Sindhu Desh and 2 - Jien Ditho Aa Mon (As I saw)]

GEO TV has the courage to lie and distort history shamelessly and openly while relaying the Proceedings of Sindh Assembly [Monday 7 April 2008] the Newsreaders at the GEO News telling that the First Resolution for Pakistan and separation of Sindh from Bomaby was presented by someone name G M Askander. Shame on you GEO TV. The correct name was Late. G M Syed and background is as under:

Read the Sindh Assembly Resolution:





On 3rd March, 1943, Mr. G.M. Syed moved the Historical Pakistan Resolution:-

“This House recommends to Government to convey to His Majesty’s Government through His Excellency the Viceroy, the sentiments and wishes of the Muslims of this Province that whereas Muslims of India are a separate nation possessing religion, philosophy, social customs, literature, traditions, political and economic theories of their own, quite different from those of Hindus, they are justly entitled to the right, as a single, separate nation, to have independent national states of their own, craved out in the zones where they are in majority in the sub-continent of India.

“Whereas they emphatically declare that no constitution shall be acceptable to them that will place the Muslims under a Central Government dominated by another nation, as in order the order of things to come, it is necessary for them to have independent National States of their own and hence any attempt to subject the Muslims of India under one Central
Government is bound to result in Civil War with grave unhappy consequences.”

Walkout by Hindu Members

The Honourable mover of the resolution stated that his resolution was intended to convey the views and sentiments of only the Mussalmans of Sind and not of the entire population of Sind. The Chair also held that it was only the wish of the Mussalmans of Sind which was going to be conveyed by this resolution. In view of this ruling of the Chair that the Hindus had no interest in the resolution and that it was only the religion and sentiments of the Mussalmans of Sind that were to be conveyed through it, the following Hindu members left the House.

Mr. Nihchaldas C. Vazirani, Mr. Dialmal Doulatram, Mr. Ghanumal Tarachand, Mr. Partabrai Khasukhdas, mr. Akhji Ratansing Sodho, Mr. Mukhi Gobindram and Rao Bahadur Hotchand Hiranand.


The Resolution was pressed to division.































The Historical Pakistan Resolution was passed by the Sindh Legislative Assembly on 3rd March, 1943 during the Session, out of 38 Members 24 Members favoured and 3 Members opposed the Pakistan Resolution.


Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 5

Haven't you had enough Quran and Sunnah during the rule of Ziaul Haq! In Islamic State [if it is taken literally] Non-Muslims cannot be appointed on key posts. For this Ruling of 'Namak Khwaran-e-Saqeefa Bani Saada' is quoted. I am referring to Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him].

Name of the Republic of Pakistan.

Quoting research of someone special is essential to learn something. Do you even know when did Pakistan became 'Islamic Republic'?

Facts are as under:

Jinnah's Pakistan died with him.

In the last fifty-three years this country has changed its name and status three times. It started life as a Dominion, which it remained until 1956, when under the constitution promulgated that year, it became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In 1962, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, who had abrogated the 1956 constitution when he took over the country in 1958, promulgated his constitution and declared it to be simply the Republic of Pakistan. Then he became a politician, expediency came to the fore and by his First Constitutional Amendment Order of 1963 we again became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, now suspended by General Pervez Musharraf, certain paragraphs of the Objectives Resolution of 1949 are reproduced and one sentence reads: "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;"

Under Article 2-A of the 1973 Constitution the Objectives Resolution has been made a substantive part of the Constitution and reproduced in the Annex. In this reproduction the sentence quoted above reads : "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;" The word 'freely' has been deliberately omitted. Mischief?

Now to a press conference held by Mohammad Ali Jinnah on July 14, 1947, in New Delhi. The text of this conference is to be found in the book recently published by Oxford University Press "Jinnah - Speeches and Statements 1947-1949" (ISBN 0 19 579021 9) and from it I quote relevant portions :

Q. Could you as governor-general make a brief statement on the minorities problem?

A. At present I am only governor-general designate. We will assume for a moment that on August 15 I shall be really the governor-general of Pakistan. On that assumption, let me tell you that I shall not depart from what I said repeatedly with regard to the minorities. Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship. Therefore, the minorities have their responsibilities also, and they will play their part in the affairs of this
state. As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.

Q. Would your interest in the Muslims of Hindustan continue as it is today?

A. My interest will continue in Hindustan in every citizen and particularly the Muslims.

Q. As president of the All India Muslim League what measures do you propose to adopt to assure the safety of Muslims in Hindu provinces?

A. All that I hope for is that the Muslims in the Hindustan states will be treated as justly as I have indicated we propose to treat non-Muslim minorities. I have stated the broad principles of policy, but the actual question of safeguards and protection for minorities in the respective states can only be dealt with by the Constituent Assembly.

Q. What are your comments on recent statements and speeches of certain Congress leaders to the effect that if Hindus in Pakistan are treated badly they will treat Muslims in Hindustan worse?

A. I hope they will get over this madness and follow the line I am suggesting. It is no use picking up the statements of this man here or that man there. You must remember that in every country there are crooks, cranks, and what I call mad people.

Q. Would you like minorities to stay in Pakistan or would you like an exchange of population?

A. As far as I can speak for Pakistan, I say that there is no reason for any apprehension on the part of the minorities in Pakistan. It is for them to decide what they should do. All I can say is that there is no reason for any apprehension so far as I can speak about Pakistan. It is for them to decide. I cannot order them.

Q. Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?A. You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.

A. Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a ducks's back. When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.

Just under one month later, on August 11, Jinnah addressed his Constituent Assembly at Karachi. He told the future legislators :

". . . . . . . you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.

Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 6

Jinnah: Making a myth by Mubarak Ali


Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had all peculiarities and characteristics in his personality to make a myth of himself. He was reticent, reserved, kept his personal matter in secrecy, behaved coolly and arrogantly and not friendly with anybody. Perhaps he wanted to create a halo of awe and fear around him. Sri Prakash, the first Indian High Commissioner, in his book '
Pakistan: Birth and early years' narrates about a reception which was given by the Governor General of Pakistan, just after the independence to the diplomats .It was also attended by the party leaders and bureaucrats. According to his version, Mr.Jinnah was sitting at a distance alone on a sofa and called one by one to those whom he wanted to talk. He exchanged notes with each one of them just for 5 minutes. To the High Commissioner, he appeared a lonely man, averse to people. His serious and somber expression made all those who interacted him uneasy in his company.

This attitude gave the impression that he was the end all and all in every matter. The Muslim League and its leaders were just rubber stamps. His image of being a sole spokesman of his party and people created a number of myths. For example, one myth about his serious illness which is narrated by Larry Collins and Dominique Lappierre in their book" Freedom at Midnight" fascinates everybody and they are compelled to take it seriously. The version of their story is:

"if Louis Mountbatten, Jawahrlal Nehru or Mahatma Gandhi had been aware in April 1947 of one extraordinary secret, the division threatening India might have been avoided. The secret was sealed onto the gray surface piece of a film, a film that could have upset the Indian political equation and would almost certainly have changed the course of Asian history. Yet, so precious was the secret that that film harbored that even the British C.I.D., one of the most effective investigative agencies in the world, was ignorant of its existence."

These were the X rays of Jinnah diagnosed as a T.B. patient. The authors, after creating a suspense, further write that: "The damage was so extensive that the man whose lungs were on the film had barely two or three years to live. Sealed in an unmarked envelope, those X rays were locked in the office safe of Dr.J.A.L.Patel, a Bombay physician."

On the basis of the story, Jinnah emerged as the one on whom depended the whole movement of Pakistan. The story further becomes interesting when a Hindu doctor kept the secret at the cost of Indian unity. His political inclinations were more important than his professional integrity.

In 1997, on the occasion of the 5oth celebration of India-Pakistan independence, Patrick French published a book"Liberty or Death'. He, after his own investigation, refutes the whole story narrated by Collins and lappierre .According to him: "The idea that Jinnah's poor state of health as a closely guarded secret is absurd: it was referred to in the press at that time, and it is obvious from photographs taken in the mid 1940s that Jinnah was unwell. Moreover, the reduction of the Muslim league's wide popular backing to the whim of one man's 'rigid and inflexible' attitude is indicative of the way that Pakistan history has been traduced. A second problem with Collins and Lappierre's story is that it is not correct. Jinnah did not go to Bombay in May or June 1946, since he was busy in negotiating with Cripps in Simla and New Delhi. Nor did he have a doctor by the name J.A.I.PatelSAlthough it is possible that Jinnah had tuberculosis in 1946, there is no evidence among his archive papers to support the theory."

However, Jinnah himself on many occasions expressed that he was the sole creator of Pakistan. In one of his famous sayings he said that he and his typewriter made Pakistan. The statement disregarded the efforts of his colleagues and the leader of Muslim League in matter of politics. It is also a denial of people's participation in the struggle for the separate homeland. There are evidence that he did not like the leaders of Muslim League.To him all of them were mediocre and incapable to lead the nation. Perhaps, that was the reason that Jinnah, knowing his fatal illness, accepted 'the moth eaten and truncated Pakistan'. The later history of Pakistan confirms Jinnah's assessment about the Muslim League's leaders who miserably failed to solve the problems of a nascent nation. The failure of these leaders has transformed Jinnah's image as a superman. He overshadowed every body. The nation also paid respect to its Great Leader in naming universities, colleges, airports, roads, hospitals, and institutions of different kinds with the result that a citizen of Pakistan feels his presence every where in the country wherever he goes. Moreover, his image as a Great Quaid is presented in the textbooks to mould the mind of the young generation encouraging him to follow in his footsteps. Scholars are writing continuously on different aspect of his life. Recently, a film is screened to counter the film Gandhi in which Attenborough distorts the image of Jinnah These efforts made him holy and sacred. Any criticism to his person is regarded a treason. He has become a paragon of virtues, beyond all weaknesses of a humanbeing.

There is such a reverence and high regard for him that mere association with him catapults a person from a humble position to the rank of freedom fighter. There are a number of people who claim to have shaken hands with him (though he avoided to shake hands with people), seen him, talked to him, or merely attended his public meeting. The rulers of Pakistan, realizing the effects of his association, create myths of their links with him. Z.A.Bhutto claimed that as a student he wrote him a letter (it is not known whether he replied to that letter or not), Zia's sycophant bureaucrats discovered a diary of Jinnah (that was the time when Hitler's diaries were discovered and later on proved false) which disappeared along with him. Nawaz Sharif, assuming to follow his footsteps, called himself as 'Quaid-I-sani (The second leader). One such similar example is found in the history of France when Napoleon iii made an attempt to revive the image of Napoleon I in order to legitimize his authority. Marx jokingly comments in ' The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,' that "Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." Nawaz Sharif's self- given title proves it.

Jinnah has become such a symbol of wisdom in the Pakistani society that people visualize Pakistan with his reference. His vision, his agenda, his dream and his ideals, all.remained unaccomplished because he died soon after the independence. It is commonly believed that had he lived some more years, history of Pakistan would have been different. There are few nations who rely so heavily on one individual. No doubt, Jinnah was a great leader of his people. He was a man of integrity and honesty, but to make him an idol and not allow anybody to emerge out of his shadow is pathetic. Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, attempt should not be made to repeat but to make a new history. People should be liberated from the shadow and allow them to flourish in a free atmosphere. Great leaders should be respected but not worshiped.


Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 7

In my opinion Pakistan can only be run peacefully if it is to be run et all then it must be run through an Strictly Secular Constitutional System otherwise be prepare for another Yugoslavia of 90s, Lebanon of 70s and 80s or latest Iraq. Those who claim that Jinnah wanted an Islamic State should know about Jinnah that he was an Ismaili [in his early life as per the record of Bombay High Court] and then converted to Shiaism [as per Sindh High Court Record more references are given at the end with excerpts from a books].

Just assume that Pakistan is going to be an Islamic State [in a literal and real sense] then what School of thought will govern the country [just imagine the mess Deobandis hates Barelvis, Shia and Wahaabis, Wahaabis hate Deobandis, Barelvis, Shias, Barelvis hates Deobandis, Wahaabis but they dont hate Shia as much above all if Jamat-e-Islami is allowed to run then all those mentioned above hate Jamat-e-Islami to extreme].

We are in a soup for big time. Assume that Jinnah wanted Theocratic Country then it would have been a Rafizi Pakistan. I am posting the entire history below read and you all decide tha should Pakistan be run on Secular Ideology or Islamic Ideology? I vote for Strictly and Pure Secular Pakistan.


On 24 September 1948, after the demise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatimah Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, submitted a jointly signed petition at the Karachi High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On 6 February, 1968 after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah'’ demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Fatimah Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on grounds that the deceased was a Shia. As per Mr. I. H. Ispahani who was a family friend of Jinnah, revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mehmoodabad. He however conceded that Jinnah was opposed in Bombay elections by a Shia Conference canditate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He himself arranged the Ghusl and Janaza {Funeral Bath and Funeral} for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia Ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni Namaz-e-Janaza was held later at Polo Ground, Karachi after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her dead body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Allama Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the gusl of the Quaid on the instructions of Miss Fatimah Jinah. He led his Namaz-e-Janaza in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such luminaries as Yousuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, an alim belonging to Deoband school of thought known for its anti-Shia belief, read his Janaza according the Sunni ritual at the ground where the mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatimah Jinnah, alam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered from her residence, Mohatta Palace. Despite all this Jinnah kept himself away from Shia politics. He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim.

[PAKISTAN: Behind the Ideological Mask (Facts About Great Men We Don’t Want to Know) by Khaled Ahmed, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. Aziz, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad].

Aamir Mughal said...

Mess of Islamic Ideology/Two Nation Theory and the Religious Right Wing of Pakistan. Part 8

Problem is this that the History of Pakistan didn't start after the Martial Law of 12 Oct 1999. Those who remember and read know as to when this so-called Process of Islamization started. Read

Religious ‘scholars’ who could not even agree on the definition of a Muslim when they were questioned by Justice M. Munir and Justice M. R. Kayani in the court of inquiry into the Punjab disturbances of 1953. The inquiry was launched after the campaign against the Ahmadis was initiated by the then Jamaat-e-Islami chief Maulana Maudoodi.

The Munir Commission Report (Lahore, 1954) states:

“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has, and that definition differs from all others, we all leave Islam’s fold. If we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to everyone else’s definition.” The report elaborated on the point by explaining that the Deobandis would label the Barelvis as kafirs if they are empowered and vice versa, and the same would happen among the other sects. The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path.

Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price. Our politicians played into the hands of these fanatics for expedient political reasons and overlooked the diminishing returns from such an unwise overture.

The journey of politicising Islam began with the Objectives Resolution. Jinnah envisioned a secular Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan made the mistake of adopting the Objectives Resolution in 1949 that stated, “Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.” This stipulation gave the mullahs the chance they were looking for, a chance to flash their religious card and put fear in the heart of the ignorant masses. After moving the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Liaquat Ali Khan said, “As I have just said, the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.” Although he believed in the power of the people and aimed for a secular, democratic rule, yet by bringing the name of religion into the Objectives Resolution, he gave an edge to the mullahs who later claimed it as their licence to impose the Shariah. And so began the rise of the fanatics.

Ulema did not wait long to demand their share of power in running the new state. Soon after independence, Jamat-i-Islami made the achievement of an Islamic constitution its central goal. Maulana Maududi, after the creation of Pakistan, revised the conception of his mission and that of the rationale of the Pakistan movement, arguing that its sole object had been the establishment of an Islamic state and that his party alone possessed the understanding and commitment needed to bring that about. Jamat-i-Islami soon evolved into a political party, demanding the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan.

It declared that Pakistan was a Muslim state and not an Islamic state since a Muslim State is any state which is ruled by Muslims while an Islamic State is one which opts to conduct its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam and accepts the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His Law, and which devotes its resources to achieve this end. According to this definition, Pakistan was a Muslim state ruled by secular minded Muslims. Hence the Jamat-i-Islami and other religious leaders channeled their efforts to make Pakistan an "Islamic State."

Maulana Maududi argued that from the beginning of the struggle for Pakistan, Moslems had an understanding that the center of their aspirations, Pakistan, would be an Islamic state, in which Islamic law would be enforced and Islamic culture would be revived. Muslim League leaders, in their speeches, were giving this impression. Above all, Quaid-i-Azam himself assured the Muslims that the constitution of Pakistan would be based on the Quran.

This contrasts to his views about the Muslim League leaders before independence: Not a single leader of the Muslim League, from Quad-i-Azam, downwards, has Islamic mentality and Islamic thinking or they see the things from Islamic point of view. To declare such people legible for Muslim leadership, because they are expert in western politics or western organization system and have concern for the nation, is definitely ignorance from Islam and amounts to an un-Islamic
mentality. On another occasion, Maulana Maududi said it was not clear either from any resolution of the Muslim League or from the speeches of any responsible League leaders, that the ultimate aim of Pakistan is the establishment of an Islamic government.....Those people are wrong who think that if the Muslim majority regions are emancipated from the Hindu domination and a democratic system is established, it would be a government of God. As a matter of fact, in this way, whatever would be achieved, it would be only a non-believers government of the Muslims or may be more deplorable than that.

When the question of constitution-making came to the forefront, the Ulema, inside and outside the Constitutional Assembly and outside demanded that the Islamic Shariah shall form the only source for all legislature in Pakistan.

In February 1948, Maulana Maududi, while addressing the Law College, Lahore, demanded that the Constitutional Assembly should unequivocally declare:

1. That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.

2. That the Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.

3. That all existing or future legislation which may contravene, whether in letter or in spirit, the
Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of the constitution; and

4. That the powers of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of the Islamic Shariah alone. On January 13, 1948, Jamiat-al-Ulema-i-Islam, led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, passed a resolution in Karachi demanding that the government appoint a leading Alim to the office of Shaikh al Islam, with appropriate ministerial and executive powers over the qadis throughout the country. The Jamiat submitted a complete table of a ministry of religious affairs with names suggested for each post. It was proposed that this ministry be immune to ordinary changes of government. It is well known that Quaid-i-Azam was the head of state at this time and that no action was taken on Ulema's demand. On February 9, 1948, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, addressing the Ulema-i-Islam
conference in Dacca, demanded that the Constituent Assembly "should set up a committee consisting of eminent ulema and thinkers... to prepare a draft ... and present it to the Assembly.

It was in this background that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, on March 7, 1949, moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, according to which the future constitution of Pakistan was to be based on " the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam."

While moving the Resolution, he said: "Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today."

The resolution was debated for five days. The leading members of the government and a large number of non-Muslim members, especially from East Bengal, took a prominent part. Non-Muslim members expressed grave apprehensions about their position and role in the new policy.

Hindu members of the Constitutional Assembly argued that the Objectives Resolution differed with Jinnah's view in all the basic points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said: "What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land." Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had "unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state." Bhupendra Kumar Datta went a step further: ...were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the
Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape...."

The leading members of the government in their speeches not only reassured the non-Muslims that their position was quite safe and their rights were not being impaired but also gave clarifications with regard to the import of the Resolution. Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Deputy Leader of the House, while defending the Resolution said: "It was remarked by some honorable members that the interpretation which the mover of this Resolution has given is satisfactory
and quite good, but Mr. B.C. Mandal says: "Well tomorrow you may die, I may die, and the posterity may misinterpret it." First of all, I may tell him and those who have got some wrong notions about the interpretation of this resolution that this resolution itself is not a constitution. It is a direction to the committee that will have to prepare the draft keeping in view these main features. The matter will again come to the House in a concrete form, and all of us will get an opportunity to discuss it."

In his elucidation of the implications of the Objectives Resolution in terms of the distribution of
power between God and the people, Omar Hayat Malik argued: "The principles of Islam and the laws of Islam as laid down in the Quran are binding on the State. The people or the state cannot change these principles or these laws...but there is a vast field besides these principles and laws in which people will have free play...it might be called by the name of 'theo-cracy', that is democracy limited by word of God, but as the word 'theo' is not in vogue so we call it by the name of Islamic democracy.

Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi further elaborated the concept of Islamic democracy: Since Islam admits of no priest craft, and since the dictionary meaning of the term "secular" is non-monastic -- that is, "anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests," Islamic democracy, far from being theocracy, could in a sense be characterized as being "secular." However, he believed that if the word "secular" means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then, I am afraid,...that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan.

During the heated debate, Liaquat Ali Khan stressed:

the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission (and that) the other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind. He was hopeful that even if the body of the constitution had to be mounted in the chassis of Islam, the vehicle would go in the direction he had already chosen. Thus he seemed quite sure that Islam was on the side of democracy. "As a matter of fact it has been recognized by non-Muslims throughout the world that Islam is the only society where there is real democracy." In this approach he was supported by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani: " The Islamic state is the first political institution in the world which stood against imperialism, enunciated the principle of referendum and installed a Caliph (head of State) elected by the people in place of the king."

The opposite conclusion, however, was reached by the authors of the Munir Report (1954) who said that the form of government in Pakistan cannot be described as democratic, if that clause of the Objectives Resolution reads as follows: " Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust." Popular sovereignty, in the sense that the majority of the people has the right to shape the nation's institutions and policy in accordance with their personal views without regard to any higher law, cannot exist in an Islamic state, they added.

The learned authors of the Munir Report felt that the Objectives Resolution was against the concept of a sovereign nation state. Corroboration of this viewpoint came from the Ulema themselves, (whom the Munir Committee interviewed) "including the Ahrar" and erstwhile Congressites with whom before the partition this conception of a modern national state as against an Islamic state was almost a part of their faith. The Ulema claimed that the Quaid-i-Azam's conception of a modern national state....became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949.

Justice Mohammad Munir, who chaired the committee, says that "if during Quaid-i-Azam's life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it.

In an obvious attempt to correct the erroneous notion that the Objectives Resolution envisaged a theocratic state in Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan repeatedly returned to the subject during his tour of the United States (May-June 1950). In a series of persuasive and eloquent speeches, he argued that "We have pledged that the State shall exercise its power and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. In this we have kept steadily before us the principles of democracy, freedom equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. There is no room here for theocracy, for Islam stands for freedom of conscience, condemns coercion, has no priesthood and abhors the caste system. It believes in equality of all men and in the right of each individual to enjoy the fruit of his or her efforts, enterprise, capacity and skill -- provided these be honestly employed."

The Objectives Resolution was approved on March 12, 1949. Its only Muslim critic was Mian Iftikhar-ud-din, leader of the Azad Pakistan Party, although he believed that "the Islamic conception of a state is, perhaps as progressive, as revolutionary, as democratic and as dynamic as that of any other state or ideology."

According to Munir, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differ in all the basic points of the
Quaid-i-Azam's views e.g:

1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice
their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

4. The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.

It was natural that with the terms of the Resolution, the Ulema should acquire considerable influence in the state. On the strength of the Objectives Resolution they made the Ahmadis as their first target and demanded them to be declared a minority.

After the adoption of Objectives Resolution, Liaquat Ali Khan moved a motion for the appointment of a Basic Principles Committee consisting of 24 members, including himself and two non-Muslim members, to report the house on the main principles on which the constitution of Pakistan is to be framed. A Board of Islamic Teaching was set up to advise the Committee on
the Islamic aspects of the constitution.

In the course of constitutional debates, a number of very crucial issues were raised that caused much controversy, both inside and outside the Constituent Assembly over specific questions such as the following:

1) The nature of the Islamic state: the manner in which the basic principles of Islam concerning state, economy, and society were to be incorporated into the constitution.

2) The nature of federalism: questions of provincial autonomy vis-a-vis federal authority with emphasis on the problems of representation on the basis of population and the equality of the federating units; the structure of the federal legislature -- unicameral or bicameral.

3) The form of government: whether it was to be modeled on the British or the U.S. pattern --
parliamentary or presidential.

4) The problem of the electorate: serious questions of joint (all confessional groups vote in one election) versus separate (each confessional group votes separately for its own candidates) electorate.

5) The question of languageboth national and regional. These very fundamental issues divided the political elites of Pakistan into warring factions that impeded the process of constitution-making.

Aamir Mughal said...

Accursed Term National Interest is often exploited by the Right Wing Religious Mafia in Pakistan.

A per my humble opinion ‘national interest’ means Unity of Pakistan and people living in it and it should be run through an Strictly Parliamentarian System guaranteeing complete Provincial Autonomy means except Defence, Foreign Exchange, Communication, and Foreign Policy everything must be managed by Provinces [that is called a True Federation not like present i.e. The Unitary Form of Government and that is the negation of Jinnah's Pakistan]

Some members of the Pakistani establishment and especially those agencies, which have assumed the role of determining what is ‘national interest of Pakistan’, and who is loyal, and who is anti Pakistan, have perhaps done more damage to Pakistan than known enemies of Pakistan. It is unfortunate that every blunder, be it at national level or in foreign affairs, is made in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’. People of Pakistan are perplexed as they fail to understand what is ’national interest of Pakistan.

People are further bewildered when some of these leaders, perceived and declared as ‘anti Pakistan’ or ‘security risk’ are sworn in to hold some kind of office in Pakistan. There are many examples where people declared as an ‘Indian agent’ or ‘traitor’ had taken high public office; even those who had no Pakistani nationality or rescinded it, had an opportunity to become Prime Minister of Pakistan. Once these people have decided that something is in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’, they will pursue that agenda without having any system of check and balance and appraisal. If any one dares to criticize what they do in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’, he/she is declared as ‘anti Pakistan’.

Similarly if a Pakistani person criticizes Pakistan government, or holds demonstration against the government policy, he is declared as ‘anti Pakistan’.

Either they don’t understand or they don’t want to understand that government and state are two different things. Governments come and go, and not all citizens of the state have duty to defend the incumbent government or its policies, whereas the state is there to stay and it is duty of every citizen to defend the state. In other words there must be loyalty to the state and respect for its integrity, but one doesn’t have to show loyalty to a government or an agency member in order to be loyal to the state.

Any criticism on one policy of any government is not a frontal attack on the existence of the state. A policy of any government could be criticized, opposed and challenged, and this action does not make anyone anti state. But some members of the Pakistani establishment think they have monopoly over wisdom and interpretation of what is ‘national interest of Pakistan’.

There is a long list of blunders which were made in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’. Governor General Ghulam Mohammed did all his ‘misdeeds’ in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’; and Iskandar Mirza and General Ayub Khan also kept this tradition alive. In the ‘national interest of Pakistan’ he successfully invaded his own country and abrogated the first constitution which was agreed and passed after nine years of hard work.

Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO military alliances against Soviet Russia, provided bases to America near Peshawar that America could conduct spying operations against Russia, and invited Russia wrath against Pakistan. And when U2 spying aero plane, which took off from Peshawar, was shot down, Russian leaders said we have made a red circle around Peshawar.

In 1956, Western countries including Israel attacked Egypt over the issue of Suez Canal, all Muslim countries and many other countries including India condemned this aggression, but Pakistani government supported it, and annoyed Muslim countries. Both incidents had far reaching consequences for Pakistan but those who made decision claimed that they did this in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’.

General Yahya Khan was also a ‘competent’ general, and in ‘national interest of Pakistan’ he also impose Martial Law and abrogated the constitution, refused to transfer power to the party with absolute majority in the parliament, ordered his army to attack Pakistani people in East Pakistan, which resulted in fall of Dhaka, and death of millions of innocent people and imprisonment of 93,000 armed personnel.

This decision not only resulted in break up of Pakistan, it also brought shame to Muslims, as it was the biggest surrender of the history. In this unfortunate situation, where people were denied their rights and right to form a government, and were forced to defend themselves against a military action, brothers fought each other and killed each other. But those who took these decisions claimed that it was done in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’, and they got away with it.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto dismissed democratically elected governments of Balochistan and North West Frontier in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’; Pakistan National Alliance started campaign against Bhutto’s government in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’, General Zia Ul Haq also had Pakistan’s national interest in his mind when he overthrew Bhutto’s government and imposed Martial law.

General Zia Ul Haq fought America’s proxy war against Russia in the ‘National interest of Pakistan’; and in return, ‘imported’ Klashnikov and heroin culture. As if this was not enough, he dismissed government of his own hand picked man Mohammed Khan Junejo while he was on an official visit abroad; and Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari who became Pakistani Presidents after the demise of General Zia Ul Haq, followed the tradition and history of dismissing elected governments in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’.

In the ‘national interest of Pakistan’, Pakistani government allowed more than three million Afghani people into Pakistan. These officials thought it was in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’ to help, support and encourage Jihadi organizations in Pakistan which ultimately carried out Jihad in Kashmir, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Now it is in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’ to crush these Jihadi organizations

It was a well-considered policy and surely a ‘national interest of Pakistan’ that Taliban movement succeeded in Afghanistan, all sorts of help and support was provided to them. Once they were in power it was in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’ to ensure that they remain in power, and for this respective Pakistani governments strained their relations with many friendly countries including Iran. Once again Pakistani officials made a U-turn and in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’ helped and supported down fall of the Taliban government. I have only pointed out very prominent events where Pakistani governments acted in self-interest but covered their deeds under the label of ‘national interest’, and those who raised objections were either put behind the bar or branded as ‘anti Pakistan’. I am sure many more such incidents could be added to this list. For writing this I will be criticized by a group of people who think they have monopoly in wisdom and have right to issue ‘fatwa’ who is loyal and who is ‘anti Pakistan’. Some Pakistani writers have also written and highlighted some of these events, and some have even used harsher words than what I have used.

Liaquat Ali Khan , Ghulam Mohammad and General Ayub Khan [1950s to 1958]

1. Even in its nascent phase, Pakistan willingly undermined itself by playing second fiddle to the United States. Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, refused Soviet overtures, choosing instead to pay a visit to the White House. That decision permanently palled Pakistan-Soviet relations.

2. In 1954 Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO, the US-led defense alliance against the Soviet Union although Pakistan per se had no dispute with the USSR.

3. In 1955 Pakistan became a member of the British-led and US-backed Baghdad Pact. The purpose of the Pact was to contain possible Soviet influence in the Middle East. Strangely, Pakistan did not belong within the geographical arrangement of the Pact. It joined just to please the Americans.

Foreign Minister Zafrullah Khan was more candid when in 1954, during a meeting with Governor Stassen asking for more aid stated, “It was Pakistan’s belief that the “beggar’s bowl” should never be concealed”.

Ayub Khan frustrated with slow pace of negotiations with US during his visit to Washington went to Henry Byroad’s office and told him, ‘I didn’t come here to look at barracks. Our army can be your army if you want us. But let’s make a decision’.[1]

Facts of History are screaming at our faces saying many things but Pakistanis living abroad don't even bother to visit the US National Security Archive to even try to know as to who sold Pakistan at the eve of 1971 War.

General Yahya Khan [1969-1971]

These papers are also available at:


The U.S. Tilt Towards Pakistan

Discussing the martial law situation in East Pakistan during March of 1971, President Richard Nixon, in his February 9, 1972 State of the World report to Congress indicated that the "United States did not support or condone this military action." Nevertheless, the U.S. did nothing to help curtail the genocide and never made any public statements in opposition to the West Pakistani repression. Instead, by using what Nixon and Kissinger called quiet diplomacy, the Administration gave a green light of sorts to the Pakistanis. In one instance, Nixon declared to a Pakistani delegation that, "Yahya is a good friend." Rather than express concern over the ongoing brutal military repression, Nixon explained that e "understands the anguish of the decisions which [Yahya] had to make." As a result of Yahya's importance to the China initiative and his friendship with Nixon and Kissinger, Nixon declares that the U.S. "would not do anything to complicate the situation for President Yahya or to embarrass him. (Document 9)." Much like the present situation post 9/11, Washington was hesitant to criticize Pakistan publicly out of fear that such a tactic might weaken the dictator's support for American interests. [3]

General Zia [1977-1988]

Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s, when the CIA was backing the Mujahideen warriors in Afghanistan, likened them to our “founding fathers,” meaning George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others. Reagan made no distinctions in his declaration among the fundamentalists, apparently lumping together many torturers and rapists among the Mujahideen along with radical fundamentalists like bin Laden. I didn’t agree with Reagan characterization of the Mujahideen then, and I certainly disagree today with praising those who carried out the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. [4]

As per a book “Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile during the so-called Afghan Jihad following things did happen;

Whereas General Zia appointed an American Non-Muslim Woman as Pakistan representative in the US

General Zia and his toady Mufti/Mullahs were playing havoc with the lives of common citizens of Pakistan through exploiting Islam particularly the weaker section of society i.e. Women, Labour, Minorities but Pseudo Commander of the Faithful General Zia ul Haq appointed a ‘Society Lady’ Joanne Herring as Pakistan’s honorary Consul in Houston, Texas USA, earlier her husband Bob Herring was offered the post but he declined and gave his wife’s name.

“She was Zia’s most trusted American adviser, as per Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, She absolutely had his ear, it was terrible,” “Zia would leave cabinet meetings just to take Joanne’s calls. “There was no affair with Zia,” Wilson recalls, but it’s impossible to deal with Joanne and not deal with her on sexual basis. No matter who you are, you take those phone calls.” {Page 67-68}.

General Musharraf [1999-2008]

The new, looser rules of engagement may have their biggest impact at a secret Central Intelligence Agency base in Pakistan whose existence was described by American and Pakistani officials who had previously kept it secret to avoid embarrassing President Pervez Musharraf politically. Mr. Musharraf, whose party lost in this week’s election by margins that surprised American officials, has been accused by political rivals of being too close to the United States. The base in Pakistan is home to a handful of Predators — unmanned aircraft that are controlled from the United States. Two Hellfire missiles from one of those Predators are believed to have killed a senior Qaeda commander, Abu Laith al-Libi, in northwest Pakistan last month, though a senior Pakistani official said his government had still not confirmed that Mr. Libi was among the dead. A C.I.A. spokesman declined on Thursday to comment on any operations in Pakistan. [5]

No receipts are attached.

In response, the Defense Department has disbursed about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year for the past six years, in one of the most generous U.S. military support programs worldwide. The U.S. aim has been to ensure that Pakistan remains the leading ally in combating extremism in South Asia. But vague accounting, disputed expenses and suspicions about overbilling have recently made these payments to Pakistan highly controversial -- even within the U.S. government. In perhaps the most disputed series of payments, Pakistan received about $80 million a month in 2006 and 2007 for military operations during cease-fires with pro-Taliban tribal elders along the border, including a 10-month truce in which troops returned to their barracks. U.S. officials say the payments to Pakistan -- which over the past six years have totaled $5.7 billion -- were cheap compared with expenditures on Iraq, where the United States now spends at least $1 billion a week on military operations alone. Yet the Bush administration has recently begun to scrutinize Pakistan's bills more closely. Washington delayed payment of about $78 million of $360 million for the March-June 2007 quarter now working its way through the reimbursement process. Pakistan will receive only $282 million later this month, U.S. officials said, with additional payment once it provides more detailed accounting. [6]

After 9/11 all changed the Arrogance of the sanctimonious prick mentioned above [General Mahmoud] and other General and Top Army Officials which they have been showing to poor and hapless Pakistani civilians since last 60 years was nowhere to be seen when the bell toll for Pakistan and its so-called Strategic Depths.


In the afternoon, Mahmood was invited to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, where he told George Tenet, the CIA director, that in his view Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief, was a religious man with humanitarian instincts and not a man of violence! This was a bit difficult for the CIA officials to digest and rightly so as the Taliban’s track record, especially in the realm of human rights, was no secret. General Mahmood was told politely but firmly that Mullah Omar and the Taliban would have to face US Military might if Osama Bin Laden along with other Al-Qaeda leaders were not handed over without delay. To send the message across clearly, Richard Armitage held a second meeting with Mahmood the same day, informing him that he would soon be handed specific American demands, to which Mahmood reiterated that Pakistan would cooperate. {Bush at War by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster, 2002, New York}, p 32. {Pakistan: Eye of the Storm by Owen Bennett Jones, published by New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002}, p. 2.

General Mahmood on September 13, 2001, was handed a formal list of the US demands by Mr. Armitage and was asked to convey these to Musharraf and was also duly informed, for the sake of emphasis, that these were “not negotiable.” Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and the assisstant secretary of state, Christina Rocca, had drafted the list in the shape of a “non-paper”. It categorically asked Pakistan:

Stop Al-Qaeda operatives coming from Afghanistan to Pakistan, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan, and end ALL logistical support for Osama Bin Laden.

Give blanket overflight and landing rights to US aircraft.

Give the US access to Pakistani Naval and Air Bases and to the border areas betweeen Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Turn over all the intelligence and immigration information.

Condemn the September 11 attacks and curb all domestic expressions of support for terrorism.

Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Talibans, and stop Pakistani volunteers from going into Afghanistan to join the Taliban. Note that, should the evidence strongly implicate Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan, and should the Taliban continue to harbour him and his accomplices, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime, end support for the Taliban, and assist the US in the aforementioned ways to destroy Osama and his network.

Having gone through the list, Mahmood declared that he was quite clear on the subject and that “he knew how the President thought, and the President would accept these points.” {Bush at War by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster, 2002, New York}, p 58-59. Interview: Richard Armitage, “Campaign Against Terror,” PBS (Frontline), April 19, 2002; last accessed June 2, 2003, at


Mahmood then faxed the document to Musharraf. While the latter was going through it and in the process of weighing the pros and cons of each demand, his aide de camp that Colin Powell was on the line. Musharraf liked and respected Powell, and the conversation was not going to be a problem. He told him that he understood and appreciated the US position, but he would respond to the US demands after having discussed these with his associates. Powell was far too polite to remind him that he in fact was the government, but did inform him that his General in Washington had already assured them that these demands would be acceptable to the government of Pakistan. {Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism : Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror by Hassan Abbas, published by An East Gate Book , M.E. Sharpe Armonk, New York. London, England.}.

'Wo eent se eent baja dein gay’, ISI DG told Musharraf


WASHINGTON : Richard Armitage, Daily Times can confirm, did not use the words attributed to him by President Pervez Musharraf in a CBS 60 Minutes interview, namely that unless Pakistan did American bidding, it will be bombed into the “stone age”. However, neither the President of Pakistan, nor Richard Armitage, who has denied using such language, nor President Bush who said he was “taken aback” when he learnt what had been said, is being untruthful. What actually happened was that after his meeting with Richard Armitage, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed – who now wears a long, white beard and has reportedly gone Tableeghi – called Gen Musharraf from the Pakistan embassy in Washington. The conversation took place in Urdu and when the president asked him what the bottom line of the American message was, Gen Mahmood replied in Urdu that the Americans were intent on the removal of the Taliban regime and would not let Pakistan stand in their way and if Pakistan did not fall in line and cooperate, “wo hamari eent se eent baja dey gain” or words to that effect. That being so, President Musharraf’s recollection of the conversation with Gen Mahmood, who was then the director general of the ISI, is accurate, only he translated into English what he had been told in Urdu. It is time for Gen Mahmood to go on record and reproduce exactly the words in which he conveyed the Armitage message to Gen Musharraf on that September day five years ago. khalid hasan

General Mehmood ‘vanishes’ By Ansar Abbasi


ISLAMABAD: Former ISI chief General Mehmood has simply vanished from the media which is trying hard to get his comments on the Musharraf-Armitage controversy over the wording of the post-9/11 threat hurled at Islamabad by Washington to win its unconditional support for the so-called war on terror. Mehmood, who has already retired from the Army, is settled in Lahore but despite repeated attempts since Saturday last he is not available to offer his comments on the issue on which his statement really matters a lot. Every time the former ISI chief was approached at his Lahore residence telephone number, the home servant-cum- operator, who identified himself as Banaras Khan, gave the ready response, ‘General Saab is out of the city, he will Inshallah call you upon his return.’

On Saturday afternoon when initially contacted, Banaras said Mehmood would be back by the evening. However, later attempts the same evening and again on Monday and Tuesday, showed that Mehmood is still out of the city. Banaras has no answer when asked where exactly has the general gone. He also claims to have no contact number of Mehmood, who Banaras insists, doesn’t carry a cell phone after it was lost

President Musharraf in a recent interview with CBS News magazine show “60 Minutes,” charged that after 9/11 the then deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage told the then DG ISI General Mehmood to “be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age”. According to a report, Mehmood, who had seen ups and downs with Musharraf in the post Oct 12, 1999 coup, has joined the Tableeghi Jamaat after he was relieved of his post-retirement assignment to head Fauji Fertilizer. Mehmood is amongst those few top generals (all retired now) including General Aziz, General Usmani and General Jamshed Gulzar, who had strongly opposed Musharraf’s siding with America in its attack on Afghanistan.

References :

1- Tale of a love affair that never was: United States-Pakistan Defence Relations Columnist Hamid Hussain analyses an ON and OFF affair. [1]


2- LETTER FROM PAKISTAN Is Pakistan on America’s Hit List? By Abbas Zaidi [2]


3- The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79 December 16, 2002 [3]


4- Blowback and Globalization [4] Understanding the First War of the Twenty-First Century By Roger Burbach


5- Pakistan Shift Could Curtail Drone Strikes By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER Published: February 22, 2008 [5]


6- U.S. Payments To Pakistan Face New Scrutiny Little Accounting for Costs To Support Ally's Troops By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 21, 2008; Page A01



hungeryjack said...

Nice post - ..Keep Posting


Post a Comment

1. You are very welcome to comment, more so if you do not agree with the opinion expressed through this post.

2. If you wish to hide your identity, post with a pseudonym but don't select the 'anonymous' option.

3. Copying the text of your comment may save you the trouble of re-writing if there is an error in posting.