Hamid Mir: Who broke Pakistan?

The grandson of late Bengali leader Abul Hashim wrote me a letter about my last article on Lahore Resolution published in this newspaper on March 23. Abul Hashim was the Secretary General of Muslim League in United Bengal before the partition of India. I wrote in my article that Abul Hashim and Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi tried to stop the division of Bengal with the help of a Hindu leader Sarat Chandra Bose in 1947 but they were failed and the division of Bengal was a violation of Lahore Resolution. I also wrote that Pakistan was created through a political struggle but after the death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah some military dictators destroyed the democratic institutions in the newly born state and that was why the majority of Bengalis turned against Pakistan.

Mr Ibrahim Khan, grandson of Abul Hashim in a mail sent to me from Dhaka endorsed my position and wrote that "the utter failure of the Pakistani rulers in terms of political knowledge, patriotism and respect for democracy shattered the hopes and aspirations of the new-born nation. Only the Lahore Resolution could have made the Pakistan a state where the Muslims as well as the non-Muslims would enjoy the freedom of their individual national culture and religious practice."

I have received lot of other mails not only from Bangladesh but also from different cities of Pakistan. It was a great surprise that most of the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis now agree that Lahore Resolution was not implemented properly, pro-American military dictators mistreated Bengalis and that was the reason for the division of Pakistan. Only one reader declared me a traitor and I was mentally prepared for that allegation. Many readers want some more information about the efforts for the creation of a United Bengal by some Muslim Leaguers who had support from Jinnah. Some students asked me who was actually responsible for the breakup of Pakistan? They asked me this question because there is no answer in their textbooks.

It is a historical fact that Bengali leaders of Muslim League and some Hindu elders of Congress tried their level best to stop the division of Bengal between March 1947 and June 1947. Congress President Acharia Kripalani was demanding the division of Bengal. It's a historical fact that Bengali leaders of Muslim League and Congress formed a six-member committee to stop the division of their province. This committee included Suharwardi, Abul Hashim and Khawaja Nazimuddin from Muslim League and Sarat Chandra Bose, Kiran Shankar Roy and Satya Ranjan Bakshi from Congress. This committee contacted both Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi and started their efforts after getting the blessing from both of them on May 12, 1947. This six-member committee reached an agreement for the creation of a united Bengal state within one week.

Sarat Chandra Bose informed Gandhi about this agreement by a letter written to him on May 23, 1947, but surprisingly Gandhi changed his position. He responded back to Bose in a letter on June 8, 1947, that Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel are opposing your scheme. In retaliation Sarat Chandra Bose tried to win the support of other Congress leaders by saying that only Brahmins were supporting the division of Bengal not low caste Hindus. He reminded the mistreatment given to his late elder brother Subhash Chandra Bose by Brahmin leaders of Congress, who was thrown out of the Congress. Abul Hashim successfully won the support of Communist Party for United Bengal. Jinnah continued also his support for the United Bengal because he also wanted to stop the division of Punjab. Ultimately all these efforts to stop the division of Bengal failed because Lord Mountbatten was on Nehru's side.

Division of Bengal was a big blow to the Bengalis. They were 56 percent of Pakistan even after the division of Bengal. They would have been more than 65 percent of Pakistan in case of a United Bengal. Developed and industrial cities like Calcutta became part of India and most of the areas in eastern part of Bengal were poor and under-developed. It was easy for military dictators like General Ayub Khan to exploit both East and West Pakistan by using military power. Media was very weak at that time and common man in the West Pakistan was not aware about the feelings of East Pakistan. If anybody today wants to know the historical truth about the disintegration of Pakistan he must read the book of a retired chief justice of Pakistan, Muhammad Munir From Jinnah to Zia. Justice Munir was the law minister of Ayub Khan.

He wrote on page 92 of his bookL "When I joined Ayub's cabinet in 1962 I found that no constructive work was being done by the Assembly. Everyday was spent in listening the long speeches of Bengali members about exploitation and about the step-motherly attitude of West Pakistan. Ayub used to listen to these speeches and was bored. I spoke to Ayub and suggested that there could be no fusion or common goal between the two provinces and asked him whether it would not be better that instead of putting up with nonsense, we must ask East Pakistan to take their affairs in their own hands. He suggested to me that I should talk about it to some influential Bengali leader. One day I spoke to a Bengali minister from East Pakistan, Ramizuddin. He asked me whether I was suggesting secession. I said yes or something like it as confederation or more autonomy. He said we are the majority province and it is for the minority province to secede because we are Pakistan."

This book was published in 1979 in Pakistan but General Zia-ul-Haq banned the book. I still have a copy of this banned book. This book is evidence that a military dictator actually tried to break Pakistan in 1962 through his law minister but Bengalis refused to break Pakistan. Bengalis were forced to take up arms against Pakistan when another military dictator General Yahya Khan tried to silence their voice by tanks and guns in 1971. Military dictators, their crony judges like Justice Munir and some corrupt politicians of West Pakistan broke Pakistan, not Bengalis. We must learn lesson from history. March 26 is the independence day of Bangladesh. Military takeovers were always bad for Pakistan as well as for Bangladesh. May Allah save these two nations from the military dictators forever in the future.

The writer works for Geo TV. Email: hamid.mir@geo.tv

Thursday, March 26, 2009 (The News)


Read more...

Pakistan: From 1971 to 2009; Some lessons for ISI, media, and oridnary public...

A page from history:

How did Pakistan Army, dominated by the so called Islamic chauvinists from Punjab, treat their Bengali colleagues in 1971? And the people in Punjab remained unaware/insensitive to the plight of their Bengali brothers and sisters because they were kept in dark by the Pakistan Army dominated and maneuvered media in 1971.

We are facing an exactly similar situation in 2009 when ISI sponsors and protects Taliban, and maneuvers media (Shahid Masood, Ansar Abbasi, Irfan Siddiqi and the likes) as well as politicians (Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Fazlur-Rehman and the likes) to promote sympathies for Taliban.






....

The other side of the picture by Sikandar Khan Baloch:

Read more...

The creation of Bangladesh and the role of the Pakistani media...

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

Mullah Military Alliance (Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, JUI, and ISI) are conspiring to bring the Bangladesh model of democracy in Pakistan

Mullah Military Alliance (Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, JUI, and ISI) are conspiring to bring the Bangladesh model of democracy in Pakistan - By Abbas Ather

Nawaz Sharif and Zardari and their supporters in PML-N and PPP must beware of conspiracies by anti-democracy forces.




Nawaz-Zardari meeting and future of politics

After a period of intense inter-party jousting, the two mainstream parties, the PPP and the PMLN, have come together again and made contact at the apex. On Saturday, President Asif Ali Zardari got Mr Nawaz Sharif over to dinner and discussed the political situation with him, vowing that he would move the country forward in collaboration with the PMLN. Mr Sharif repeated his undertaking that he would do nothing to destabilise the government and join hands with Mr Zardari in facing up to the problems of terrorism and economic crisis.

This is the first “summit” meeting since August when the PMLN got out of the coalition with the PPP. Three months of non-communication or communication through public statements has exacerbated the political environment. In politics, aggression is expressed through non-communication. We hope that, despite all the differences that crowd the pages of the newspapers, the two leaders will continue the practice of meeting each other. Indeed, it would do the country no harm if they met once a month, not to make compromises on their fundamental party positions, but simply to reaffirm that they would not act against each other’s legitimate interests.

People who believe that such meetings would be “unnatural” will point to “irreconcilable contradictions” between the two parties. In democracy, partisan politics is based on “alternation” in power. The party in power is opposed by the party in opposition because it stands as the “alternative” in the eyes of the people. Thus, at the people’s level, it is very important for the leaders to keep their differences highlighted so that their constituencies can remain distinct. The “PPP-PMLN coalition” that did not last was in some respects foredoomed because the partylines were threatened with dilution. The hawks then struck out and embarked on a campaign of aggressive criticism to re-establish obscured identities.

In the 1990s, the PPP and the PMLN were reputed to be “undemocratically” hostile to each other, not averse to using unparliamentary means to dethrone each other and victimise each other’s supporters through what passed for “accountability”. Both hurt themselves in the process and were in some ways responsible for the dilution of their power to rule and its transfer to a third element. But this was realised and then remedied in the Charter of Democracy of 2006 signed by both the parties. In a way the Charter describes the limits beyond which they will not take their traditional habits of political rivalry. Therefore the reference to the Charter in the Saturday dinner can only be welcomed.

The PMLN has backed an increasingly anti-PPP lawyers’ movement but has also showed restraint when the lawyers wanted to go over the precipice. It is upset that President Zardari should retain the 17th Amendment that excludes Mr Sharif from holding the post of prime minister. Mr Zardari’s response on Saturday was that the 17th Amendment could be removed or amended only with a two-thirds majority in parliament; and he will inevitably link it to another proposed amendment in respect of the judges’ appointment since it figures in the Charter as well. If this is an impasse because Mr Sharif insists on the revival of the judiciary under Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry, an overtly anti-PPP political step, it doesn’t mean that the two parties should go on the warpath.

Going at each other’s throat — apart from the fact that it will benefit neither party — will hurt the country. The PPP rules in three provinces and controls the country’s industrial hub in Karachi; the PMLN rules in Punjab which means it rules over 60 percent of the population of the country. The lines are firmly drawn and spheres of power clearly described. Additionally, the PMLN is popular in Punjab, as it were, across the board. So Mr Zardari can hope to survive as a leader if the PPP’s tenure in power is successful and Mr Sharif can extend his party’s increasingly provincial appeal to the national level if he tones down the hostile rhetoric of his party hawks.

What is clearly indicated here is mutual respect and collaboration on national issues. It is said that Mr Zardari’s trip to Saudi Arabia was not such a shining success because he had not taken Mr Sharif along. If this is true, and if it is also true that the Saudis actually asked Mr Zardari about Mr Sharif, then Mr Sharif should have been invited to go along. Mr Zardari’s efforts at communicating with the rival leadership are commendable; but equally commendable is the determination of Mr Sharif not to revert to the past patterns that brought so much misfortune to the people of Pakistan. (Daily Times)
Read more...

Bangladesh: familiar trajectory?

Begum Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) has been freed and become the party’s permanent chief. She was in jail for a year on corruption charges, which are still in place. Her son Tariq Rehman is known as Mr Ten Percent. The deal with the army, that imposed emergency in 2007 to break a fatal clinch between the two family-led parties, is that she will not boycott the polls coming up in December this year. Meanwhile the army has tried to clean up the political system, eliminating 1.5 million fake voters from the voters’ list.

Begum Zia’s rival Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League, also in jail for corruption, was released earlier. Everyone knows what the two begums and their family-owned parties will do. The pattern is similar to the PPP-PMLN rivalry in Pakistan whom a military ruler tried unsuccessfully to keep out of the system, just like the Bangladesh army. As the two lock horns, Islamists have penetrated Bangladesh and destroyed its magnificent Bengali culture. The state is coming apart at the seams. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? (Daily Times, 16 September)
Read more...