PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Ulema and Pakistan Movement- lets set history straight.

(147 posts)
  1. amirbutt

    The role of Ulema in the creation of Pakistan is evident by this post. They were on the wrong side of history than and they are on the wrong side of history now. They tried their best to stop the creation of Pakistan. They personally attacked all the leading personalities of Pakistan Muslim league and gave labels like kafir azam to Quaid Azam. For all these reasons even today they are rejected by the people of Pakistan in every election.


    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. ................

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 10:16 #
  2. jaypk have to share your view and outcome of this as well...!!

    rest assured it could prove to be a heated debate..!!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 10:39 #
  3. Salam

    I disagree with the conclusion on role of Ulama in sub-continent politics.

    When All India Muslim League leadership was with congress or away from political front, it was movements of Ulama in sub-continent that set the political energy in the Muslims which later converted to Pakistan Movement in late 30s & early forties.

    Study the political movements & activities in 20s and you will know that who was charging and rallying Muslims together against colonials.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:04 #
  4. amirbutt

    your welcome but I am surprised that I dont see you asking for the same thing on this thread
    kiya yeh khula tezad nahie haie?
    You and your sidekick would have gotten my response if you would have only hold your horses before attacking me and calling me names of bathroom utensils.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:04 #
  5. Salam

    See my post above, don't miss the point.

    There was a member named lota here and your tone/style matches with that member.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:06 #
  6. amirbutt

    jjkhan the people that created pakistan were Sir syed, Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the members of the muslim league. The title of this thread is the role of ulema in creation of Pakistan. This is the only activity I am interested in. Please share the role of ulema In creation of Pakistan from the 1920's.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:08 #
  7. zia m

    People of Pakistan are aware of the fact that Mullas have lost touch with the realities of modern life.The miserable performance of Islamic political parties in past elections are a clear indication of their failure in public affairs.
    Now they realize that they can only come to power by force.Their initial support for Taliban has further damaged their image in the public.Now they are getting desparate and trying to destabalize the present regime.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:08 #
  8. amirbutt

    jjkhan if you suspect anything please report it with the moderators / admin.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:09 #
  9. msohail83

    How are the ulemas on the wrong side of the history today? Who do you consider the ulemas?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:10 #
  10. amirbutt

    Zia m there was a fight between the tradionalist muslims and the rationalist muslims in the 9th century. The tradionalist came out as the winners and hence we are where we are today.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:11 #
  11. Salam

    mr butt,

    The idea of dividing a muslim land is alien to Islam that is where ulama were against dividing the area. You can challenge them technically on sharia grounds.

    These ulama are same ulama who in Balochistan are against division of Pakistan while Baloch nationalists consider them traitors. But now you call same ulama patriots because they hold same islamic principle that suits you in this case.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:12 #
  12. Salam


    lota used to say same thing about imam gazali and ibn sina/rushd

    so there are a lot of similarities in the ideas that you have and what lota had.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:14 #
  13. Anonymous


    please 'Subhaat kay sumandar mein ghootay khana choor doo'. Just see what is said, does not matter much who said.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:15 #
  14. jaypk

    i think the poster means...mullahs was against...nt ulemas...!! which i admit..!!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:15 #
  15. amirbutt

    jjkhan the first posts lists all the postions that you are stating that the ulemas used against the creation of pakistan. Dividing a muslim land is one of them and was used by a lot of ulemas. This thread is about creation of pakistan. If you want to debate the baluchistan issue I will gladly debate that in a separate thread because I dont want this thread to go offtopic and all over the place.
    I take the baluchistan issue very seriously and I beleive that it can be sorted out by giving more provincial atonomy and sitting on the negotiation table. Ulema should not be a factor in solving the baluchistan problem. They are a non party.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:17 #
  16. zia m

    My suggestion for Ulema is to quit politics and use their energy in producing good Muslims.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:17 #
  17. Anonymous

    Better they make themselves as good muslims

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:19 #
  18. amirbutt

    I am for participation of everyone in politics in Pakistan.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:19 #
  19. Salam

    I've already stated my point that the whole platform was organized and charged by the movements of Ulema in 20s which was later transformed into Pakistan Movement.

    I told you that I am not in for writing a book, so I suggest you to study sub-continent history of 20s to understand the connection.

    Study movements lead by Ali Brothers and see how they charged up the political environment in Pakistan when AIML leaders used to distance themselves from Muslims.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:20 #
  20. Anonymous

    Amir Butt

    Yes every one but not mullas. It is not their domain.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:21 #
  21. amirbutt

    jjkhan pleae use the report abuse thread and report me as suspected double id. lets get it cleared so you can sleep peacefully at night and properly digest food.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:21 #
  22. Salam

    Study the activities by GM Syed and see what he was doing in 20s and how he later lead Pakistan movement.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:22 #
  23. amirbutt

    JJkhan ali brothers were in the khilafat movement which was led by a famous congress leader Ghandhi. Do you disagree with anything in the first post?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:22 #
  24. zia m

    Moderator,please delete the irrelevant posts.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:23 #
  25. Salam

    Muslims and Hindus both wanted freedom from colonial slavery and fought together during 1857.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:24 #
  26. amirbutt

    Gm syed was for the creation of Pakistan. Can you say the same about the ulema?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:24 #
  27. jaypk have to change the name of the topic...from ulema to me tht woould help a lot..!!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:31 #
  28. Salam

    GM Syed participated against colonials during 20s. Movements in 20s were against colonials and leaders were jailed and people were batton charged with properties confiscated. Study those uprising it is very important to understand that uprising that was later transformed into Pakistan Movement.

    Pakistan movement faced no resistance from colonials why?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:32 #
  29. amirbutt

    jaypk I am not looking for help. If you read the first post the names of muslim leaders in it were not some street corner mullahs. They were Ulemas and the cream of the crop of united India.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:32 #
  30. jaypk

    @amir..hey calm down buddy...i wasnt offerin help to didnt get was for the ease of differentiation....if you read the topic..and if its against mullahs...more ppl would read it..if its sumthing related to ulemas,...i dnt think it would be the same...we all read the topic first and then proceed...!!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:35 #
  31. amirbutt

    jjkhan I have studied Indian politics of 1900-1800 in detail. The first 10 lines of the first post say exactly the same thing that you are getting at. The ulema were very active in politics but they never got on board with the Muslim League.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:36 #
  32. amirbutt

    jaypk the intention of this thread is to discuss the role of ulema in creation of Pakistan. There is no need to sugar coat anything.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:39 #
  33. The CLERGY during British India actually opposed creation of Pakistan is better understood by the following study that explains:

    In 1877, Syed Ameer Ali formed the Central National Muhammadan Association to work towards the political advancement of the Muslims, but the organization declined towards the end of the nineteenth century. A turning point came in 1900 when the British administration in the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), acceded to Hindu demands and made Hindi, written in the Devanagari script, the official language. The Muslims feared that the Hindu majority would seek to suppress Muslim culture and religion in an independent India.

    The All-India Muslim League was founded on December 30th, 1906, on the sidelines of the annual All India Muhammadan Educational Conference in Shahbagh, Dhaka. The meeting was attended by three thousand delegates and presided over by Nawab Viqar-ul- Mulk. It addressed the issue of legitimate safeguards for Muslims and finalized a programme. A resolution moved by Nawab Salimullah and seconded by Hakim Ajmal Khan. Nawab Viqar-ul-Milk, declared:

    “The musalmans are only a fifth in number as compared with the total population of the country, and it is manifest that if at any remote period the British government ceases to exist in India, then the rule of India would pass into the hands of that community which is nearly four times as large as ourselves …our life, our property, our honor, and our faith will all be in great danger, when even now that a powerful British administration is protecting its subjects, we the Musalmans have to face most serious difficulties in safe-guarding our interests from the grasping hands of our neighbors.”

    World War II had broken the back of both Britain and France and disintegration of their colonial empires was expected soon. With the election of another sympathetic Labour government in Britain in 1945, Indians were seeing independence within reach. But, Gandhi and Nehru were not receptive to Jinnah’s proposals and were also adamantly opposed to dividing India, since they knew that the Hindus, who saw India as one indivisible entity, would never agree to such a thing. In the Constituent Assembly elections of 1946, the League won 425 out of 496 seats reserved for Muslims (and about 89.2% of Muslim votes) on a policy of creating an independent state of Pakistan, and with an implied threat of secession if this was not granted. By 1946 the British had neither the will, nor the financial resources or military power, to hold India any longer. Political deadlock ensued in the Constituent Assembly, and the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, sent a Cabinet Mission to India to mediate the situation.
    When the talks broke down, Attlee appointed Louis Mountbatten as India’s last Viceroy, to negotiate the independence of Pakistan and India and immediate British withdrawal. Mountbatten, of imperial blood and a world war admiral, handled the problem as a campaign. Ignorant of the complex ground realities in British India, he rashly proponed the date of transfer of power and told Gandhi and Nehru that if they did not accept division there would be civil war in his opinion and he would rather consider handing over power to individual provinces and the rulers of princely states. This forced the hands of Congress leaders and the “Independence of India Act 1947” provided for the two dominions of Pakistan and India to become independent on the 14th and 15th of August 1947 respectively. This result was despite the calls for a third Osmanistan in the early 1940s.

    It is obvious that clergy or ullama did not participate actively showing solidarity to the independence movement. They could be called ‘nationalists’ of that time who opposed the partition of the subcontinent!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:40 #
  34. amirbutt

    Syed Ameer Ali traced his lineage through the eighth Imam, Ali Al-Raza, to the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.). One of his forefathers held office under Shah Abbas II of Persia. Another took part in Nadir Shah's invasion of India. After the plunder of Delhi, his forefathers decided to settle in the Sub-continent and started serving Muhammad Shah. Another of his forefathers fought against Marhattas in the third battle of Panipat. After the death of his grandfather, his father Saadat Ali Khan was brought up and educated by his maternal uncle.
    Saadat Ali Khan had five sons, Syed Ameer Ali being the youngest of them. He was born on April 6, 1849. His father, on the advice of some friendly British officers, made a break with the traditions and gave his sons an English education. Ameer Ali was educated at Hoogly College. He was a precocious child and learnt Arabic, Persian, Arab philosophy and history from his gifted father. He graduated in 1867 and became one of the first Muslim graduates in India. In 1868, he passed his MA in history, and law, and in the same year proceeded to England on a government scholarship to pursue his higher studies. In London, he joined the Temple Inn and made contacts with the elite of the city. He imbibed the influence of contemporary liberalism.

    He returned to India in 1873 and resumed his legal practice at Calcutta High Court. The following year, he was elected as a Fellow of Calcutta University and was also appointed as a lecturer in Islamic Law at the Presidency College. He was one of the first leaders to clearly visualize that the Muslims should organize themselves politically if they were to have an honored place in Indian public life. With this devotion, he established the Central National Muhammadan Association on April 12 1877. He was associated with it for over 25 years, and worked for the political advancement of the Muslims. In 1878, he was appointed as the member of the Bengal Legislative Council. He revisited England in 1880 for one year.

    In 1883, he was nominated to the membership of the Governor General Council. He became a professor of law in Calcutta University in 1881. In 1890 he was made a judge in the Calcutta High Court. He retired in 1904 and decided to settle down in England. This was a fateful decision of his career. Though, due to his influence in government circles, he contributed a lot for the Muslim community of India, while sitting in London, he was away from the main current of Muslim political life. Had he lived in India, he could have filled the gap in Muslim leadership created by the death of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

    He established the London Muslim League in 1908. This organization was an independent body and not a branch of All India Muslim League. In 1909, he became the first Indian to sit as a Law Lord of the Privy Council. In 1910, he established the first mosque in London. His field of activities was now broadened and he stood for the Muslim welfare all over the world. He played an important role in securing separate electorates for the Muslims in South Asia and promoting the cause of the Khilafat Movement.

    He wrote a number of books on Islam and Islamic history. His most notable contributions are "The Spirit of Islam", "A Short History of the Saracens" and "Muhammadan Law". His book "Spirit of Islam", to some scholars, was the greatest single work on the liberal exposition of Islam.

    He died on August 4, 1928 in Sussex.

    Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk, fondly known as Syed Mehdi Ali, was born to a family of Barah Syeds on December 9, 1837 at Etawah. Mehdi Ali received the best of early education in and around Etawah. He was given a thorough basic education, both in Persian and Arabic.
    In 1867, he sat for the Provincial Civil Service examination and topped the list of successful candidates. He was appointed as Deputy Collector in U. P. It was here that he met Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. In 1874, Mehdi Ali proceeded to Hyderabad and for his meritorious services, he was conferred the titles of Munir Nawaz Jang and Nawab Mohsin-ud-Daula by the Nizam of Hyderabad.

    In 1893, Mehdi Ali came to Aligarh and offered his services to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to assist him in spreading the message of Aligarh. Upon the death of Sir Syed, he was appointed as the Secretary of the Muslim Educational Conference. Towards the beginning of 20th century, the Hindi-Urdu controversy arose in the United Provinces. Mohsin-ul-Mulk took up the pen in defense of Urdu in collaboration with the Urdu Defense Association.

    Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk, being a farsighted and politically conscious leader, carried on correspondence with the private secretary of the Viceroy to give his point-of-view on the necessity of separate representation for the Muslims in all legislatures and local bodies. In 1906, he, along with Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk, was asked to draft the constitution of the Muslim League.

    He died on October 16, 1907 from chronic diabetes.

    Named Mushtaq Hussain by his parents, Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk was born on March 24, 1841. He started his education at a maktab and later on became a pupil of Maulvi Rahat Ali Amrohi, under whom he learned advanced Arabic, Hadith and Fiqh. He later joined government services where he came in contact with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1861 in the United Provinces.
    In 1866, he started his career as a humble worker of the Aligarh Movement. He also became a member of the Scientific Society. In 1870, he was awarded second prize in an essay competition arranged by the Society for the Promotion of Education Among Muslims. The subject of his essay focused on bringing about an educational renaissance among the Muslims.

    In 1875, he was invited to serve in Hyderabad State under the British. He continued to serve for 17 years and as a result of his meritorious services, he was elevated to the rank of a Nawab, his full title being Nawab Mushtaq Hussain Viqar-ul-Mulk.

    Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk was a member of the Simla Deputation in 1906. He wanted the Muslims to organize themselves politically and to safeguard their political rights. He also played an active role in the establishment of the Muslim League.

    Starting his political career with the Aligarh Movement, he represented and guarded the Indian Muslim cause at two significant events, the Simla Deputation and the establishment of the Muslim League.

    By 1915, he was paralyzed by a stroke. He passed away on January 27, 1917, and was buried in his family graveyard at Amroha.
    Hakim Ajmal Khan
    On December 30 1906, the annual meeting of Muhammadan Educational Conference was held at Dhaka under the chairmanship of Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk. Almost 3,000 delegates attended the session making it the largest-ever representative gathering of Muslim India. For the first time the conference lifted its ban on political discussion, when Nawab Salim Ullah Khan presented a proposal for establish a political party to safeguard the interests of the Muslims; the All India Muslim League.
    Three factors had kept Muslims away from the Congress, Sir Syed's advice to the Muslims to give it a wide berth, Hindu agitation against the partition of Bengal and the Hindu religious revivalism's hostility towards the Muslims. The Muslims remained loyal to Sir Syed's advice but events were quickly changing the Indian scene and politics were being thrust on all sections of the population.
    But the main motivating factor was that the Muslims' intellectual class wanted representation; the masses needed a platform on which to unite. It was the dissemination of western thought by John Locke, Milton and Thomas Paine, etc. at the M. A. O. College that initiated the emergence of Muslim nationalism.

    The headquarters of the All India Muslim League was established in Lucknow, and Sir Aga Khan was elected as its first president. Also elected were six vice-presidents, a secretary and two joint secretaries for a term of three years. The initial membership was 400, with members hailing proportionately from all provinces. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jouhar wrote the constitution of the League, known as the "Green Book". Branches were also setup in other provinces. Syed Ameer Ali established a branch of the League in London in 1908, supporting the same objectives.

    Following were the objectives of the Muslim League:
    1. To inculcate among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the government and to disabuse their minds of misunderstandings and misconceptions of its actions and intentions.
    2. To protect and advance the political rights and interests of the Muslims of India and to represent their needs and aspirations to the government from time to time.
    3. To prevent the growth of ill will between Muslims and other nationalities without compromising to it's own purposes.

    Many Hindu historians and several British writers have alleged that the Muslim League was founded at official instigation. They argue that it was Lord Minto who inspired the establishment of a Muslim organization so as to divide the Congress and to minimize the strength of the Indian Freedom Movement. But these statements are not supported by evidence. Contrary to this, the widely accepted view is that the Muslim League was basically established to protect and advance the Muslim interests and to combat the growing influence of the Indian National Congress.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:49 #
  35. jaypk

    @amir.....The role of Ulema in the creation of Pakistan is evident by this post. They were on the wrong side of history than and they are on the wrong side of history now.

    you are nt discussing are giving a verdict..i m nt sugar coating anything...1

    the ulema e karam and aalim e deen and religious scholars and mashaikh are all different frm mullahs of tht time and were always in the favor of was the so called mullah belong to a specific mind set and group who opposed it i dont want to name it since everyone knows abt them and enuff has been said abt them..

    ..Eminent ulemas and spiritual leaders such as, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Maulana Abdul Hamid Badayuni, Dewan Syed Ale Rasul Ali Khan of Ajmer,Khwaja Ghulam Sadeed-ud-din of Tonsa, Sajjada Nasheen of Pakpattan, Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin Chisti of Golra, Maulana Qamar-ud-din of Saeeyal, Pir Syed Jamiat Ali Shah of Alipur, Maulana Syed Fazal Shah of Jalalpur and many more participated in the election campaign. The spiritual leaders directed their followers to only vote for the Muslim League if you keep on draggin ulemas in ll lose the plot...!!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 11:58 #
  36. amirbutt was the so called mullah belong to a specific mind set and group who opposed it i dont want to name it since everyone knows abt them and enuff has been said abt them..

    Who are you talking about? why are you afraid to name names?

    The leaders and the organized religious parties listed in the first post are not some street corner mullahs and when you paint them as such that does not do them justice. They were intellectuals who had valid reasons according to them to not choose the Pakistan movement. I have no problem giving credit to where credit is due. The people you have named are all highly respected ulema also. The purpose of this thread is to find out who participated in the Pakistan Movement. I would greatly appreciate it if you provide links if you can so we can find out more about contributions of people who were involved in the creation of Pakistan.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 12:12 #
  37. amirbutt

    During the last days of the Muslim rule, Urdu emerged as the most common language of the northwestern provinces of India. It was declared the official language, and all official records were written in this language. In 1867, some prominent Hindus started a movement in Banaras in which they demanded the replacement of Urdu with Hindi, and the Persian script with the Deva Nagri script, as the court language in the northwestern provinces. The reason for opposing Urdu was that the language was written in Persian script, which was similar to the Arabic script, and Arabic was the language of the Quran, the Holy Book of the Muslims. The movement grew quickly and within a few months spread throughout the Hindu population of the northwestern provinces of India. The headquarters of this movement were in Allahabad.
    This situation provoked the Muslims to come out in order to protect the importance of the Urdu language. The opposition by the Hindus towards the Urdu language made it clear to the Muslims of the region that Hindus were not ready to tolerate the culture and traditions of the Muslims.

    The Urdu-Hindi controversy had a great effect on the life of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Before this event he had been a great advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity and was of the opinion that the "two nations are like two eyes of the beautiful bride, India". But this movement completely altered his point of view. He put forward the Two-Nation Theory, predicting that the differences between the two groups would increase with the passage of time and the two communities would not join together in anything wholeheartedly.

    A Historical Perspective of Urdu

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 12:21 #
  38. As a student of Pakistan Movement, I understand the article by Mr. Semirza is more informative to reach a conclusion.

    Muslim Ulemas of India, mostly supported the Independence Movement under the leadership of Gandhi.

    They supported 'Quit India' slogan coined by the Indian National congress, but hardly supported the Muslim League on 'Divide and Quit' demand.

    Religious Scholars from Deovband School of Thought, joined Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Allama Inayat Ullah Mashraqi, Majlis-i-Ahrar and Unionist Party of Khizar Hayat, who opposed the partition of India and creation of Pakistan.

    A small section of Brelvi School of Thought joined the Qaud-i-Azam.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 12:27 #
  39. zia m

    Most of Deoband Ulema were against creation of Pakistan.They are the ones supporting Taliban now.Bralevis on the other hand supported Pakistan and now they are against Taliban.
    It hurts me to admit it since i have been Wahabi most of my life and a supporter of Deoband.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 12:37 #
  40. Salam

    If we look at events in proper chronology then we can see how self contradictory arguments like "They supported 'Quit India' slogan coined by the Indian National congress, but hardly supported the Muslim League on 'Divide and Quit' demand" are because when Muslims were active and locals were united against colonials there was no such proposal of divide and quit.

    Demand for division came in later, second it is factually incorrect to say that Muslim leadership was following Gandhi because Gandhi followed initiative taken by Muslim leadership and then later disconnected himself.

    Division and quit was british idea and plan which they passed in their british parliament and after passing that act they divided the region unjustly and left prematurely.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 12:56 #
  41. jaypk

    @amir..why don’t I name them?? M I afraid of anyone?? Its nt the fear I ll tell you whd it is….btw it was maulana maudoodi and his followers and other mullahs of the same circle who opposed the creation if you want me to be the first one to receive a fatwa :-)…!!

    …pal..the problem with our ppl is tht we jump to conclusions very quickly..and we want ourselves to live in the life where whdeva has been told to us or whdeva we see we call it right and we hardly try to dig deep and look fr the facts…even if you try to google up sumthin you ll get mixed a personality you ll have the good features but thn thr rivals make another website to slash them..…since if you have to go against the flow thn you have to struggle..which is a hard job..but to stand in the firing range is a bit tough....ppl will start callin you names and thn even the next thing you would say if its 100 percent true nobody would believe you..…if I ll say sir aga khan and ismailees were pro Pakistani ppl will bash me as an aga khani and in minutes I ll be a kaafir..…if I ll say sumthin abt sir zafrullah khan ppl would call me munkir e rasool regardless of his contribution..if I second Turkish revolution and kamal ata turk..they ll call me going against religion..if I ll discuss inquilaab e iraan the first question with a mark of sarcasm would be .do you belong to the same sect?..…this is a bit unbelievable but on posting comments abt manmohan singh on another forum ppl were quick to call me an Indian and gave the reason tht since I never posted a comment abt any Pakistani leader but appreciated manmohan singhs CV so I m in Indian…one come up with a justification tht I always criticize pks policies so he is also sure abt this…:-)

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:06 #
  42. "Division and quit was british idea"
    Are you accepting that Pakistan was created by the British Government?
    Again this is a Pro Indian National Congress concept.

    * Deobandi School of thought opposed 'Division' but supported Freedom of India.
    Bottom line:
    * Deovbandi School of Thought as a group, never favored the Division of India and Creation of Pakistan.

    * They could have asked for an apology from the nation on taking a wrong position before Partition.
    * I am sure Pakistanis would have pardoned them as they did to Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

    (You don't have to win every argument.)

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:15 #
  43. amirbutt

    jaypk We should honor everyone who participated in the creation of pakistan. If you are afraid to do so for any reason than what does that say?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:17 #
  44. amirbutt

    maudaudi and jamat islamis role in creation of pakistan.
    When Pakistan was created in the summer of 1947, the Muslim League and the Jama‘at were at loggerheads, though instances of cooperation continued both before and after. The convergence of objectives of these two communalist programs, and Jama‘at’s hostility to the Congress party, in 1937–1939 had established a common ground. Mawdudi began his forays into politics by asserting Muslim communal consciousness against Congress’s secular nationalist platform in 1937, two years before he even took notice of the Muslim League in his proclamations or written works. His program was first articulated in a series of articles in the Tarjumanu’l-Qur’an and later published in Musalman Awr Mawjudah Siyasi Kashmakash (1938–1940) (Muslims and the Current Political Struggle) and Mas’alah-i Qaumiyat (1947) (Question of Nationality), where he attacked his erstwhile mentors among Congress supporters, ‘Ubaidu’llah Sindhi, Abu’l-Kalam Azad, and the leaders of the Jami‘at-i Ulama-i Hind.[1] In these works Mawdudi depicted the Congress as a convenient front for the Hindu drive for power and as a secular and, worse yet, socialist party, whose views were incompatible with Muslim values.[2] He therefore challenged the wisdom of siding with the Congress, asserting: “There are no common grounds between our movements [Muslim and the Hindu]; our death is their life, and their death our life.”[3] Nor was Mawdudi persuaded by the anti-imperialist rhetoric and logic of the Muslim supporters of the Congress. Combating the evil of imperialism, Mawdudi argued, did not justify sacrificing Islam.[4]

    The fight against imperialism…and expulsion of the British has meaning for us only in the context of la ilaha ila’llah [there is no god but God];…otherwise there is no difference between imperialism and idol-worshipping democracy [the Congress’s position]. Lot goes and Manat [Qur’anic terms referring to evil and pagan forces] replaces it.[5]

    Although Mawdudi’s line of attack was directed against pro-Congress Muslims as a whole, his most acid remarks were reserved for Mawlana Husain Ahmad Madani (1879–1957), the head of the Jami‘at-i Ulama-i Hind at the time, and one of the most outspoken and ardent supporters of the Congress party among Indian ulama. Madani was vehemently anti-British and dedicated to the nationalist cause; he was instrumental in establishing a base of support for the Congress among Muslims. In 1939 Madani had presented his views and the Jami‘at-i Ulama’s political platform in a pamphlet entitled Mutahhidah Qaumiyat Awr Islam (United/Composite Nationalism and Islam). The small tract soon became the basis for the Congress party’s Muslim policy, and hence the focus of Mawdudi’s most caustic invective. Mawdudi censured Madani’s thesis and challenged his political and ultimately religious authority, accusing him of sacrificing Islam at the altar of his anti-British sentiments. Mawdudi couched his arguments in religious terms, which not only undermined the Jami‘at-i Ulama’s political platform but also weakened its religious justification, hindering the ulama’s efforts to accommodate Indian nationalism within the framework of Muslim orthodoxy. So forceful was Mawdudi’s charge against Madani and the Jami‘at-i Ulama that Mufti Kifayatu’llah, a senior Jami‘at-i Ulama stalwart, advised his colleagues not to engage Mawdudi in embarrassing debates.[6] These debates had already prompted Muhammad Iqbal to remark, “Mawdudi will teach a lesson to these Congressite Muslims,”[7] and had led some enthusiastic Muslim League workers to refer to Mawdudi as “our Abu’l-Kalam [Azad].”[8]

    Desperate to attract some support for its two-nation platform from the religious quarter, the Muslim League developed a keen interest in Mawdudi’s anti-Jami‘at-i Ulama crusade, which gave it a religious justification for rejecting the Congress’s plea for a united stand against colonial rule. Muslim League speakers borrowed such terms as hukumat-i ilahiyah (divine government) and khilafat-i rabbani (divine caliphate) from Mawdudi’s repertory, and his contribution to the Muslim League’s political agenda was often cited and acknowledged in private along with those of Iqbal and Mawlana Hasrat Muhani.[9]

    Mawdudi’s writings were widely distributed in Muslim League sessions between 1937 and 1939.[10] League workers found this effort especially productive in Amritsar in 1939, when scores of copies of the Musalman Awr Mawjudah Siyasi Kashmakash were distributed.[11] A similar attitude was evident in the League’s central committee, which authorized the widespread circulation of Mawdudi’s religious decrees against the Jami‘at-i Ulama leaders in 1939.[12] Mawdudi’s usefulness to the League, however unintended, was nevertheless significant.[13] One Muslim League leader wrote of Mawdudi in retrospect that “the venerable Mawlana [Mawdudi]’s writings in Tarjumanu’l-Qur’an greatly furthered the League’s religious and national demands.”[14] The Jama‘at’s contribution to the League’s enterprise is perhaps the best example of an aspect of the growth of support for Pakistan in north and northwest India that has not thus far received its due attention.

    So favorable was the impression that the Muslim League had of Mawdudi in 1939 that Mawlana Zafar Ahmad Ansari, then the secretary of the central parliamentary board of the Muslim League, who was at the time advocating the party’s cause before the senior ulama, took it upon himself to approach Mawdudi with a view to officially enlisting his support for the Muslim League. Mawdudi, not unexpectedly, turned down his offer, for he saw his contribution to the League and his success in stemming the tide of Muslim religious fervor for the Congress as a sign not of the confluence of his views and those of the Muslim League, but of the fundamentally religious nature of the Pakistan movement, his own inherent qualities as a leader, and his ultimate destiny to lead that movement. The nature of relations between the Jama‘at and the Muslim League was not decided by Mawdudi’s opposition to the Congress alone, but involved the competition between the two for power.

    • • •

    Relations with the Pakistan Movement
    Mawdudi’s revivalist agenda took shape at a time when the Muslim League was a force to be reckoned with and the question of a separate Muslim homeland became a serious proposition. As a result, the course of the Jama‘at’s development became ineluctably bound to Muslim League politics. Since then the relationship between the two has influenced both the Jama‘at’s development and the Islamization of the political discourse in Pakistan. It has been a curious aspect of these relations, which the Jama‘at’s critics characterize as “opposition to Pakistan,” that the Jama‘at was more tolerant of the Muslim League’s support for a separate Muslim homeland in 1941 than it was in 1947. Its attacks on the character of the Muslim separatist struggle became more virulent as the League became more prominent in Muslim politics. The Jama‘at did not object to Pakistan but to its creation under the aegis of the League. Mawdudi readily admitted that he was opposed to the Muslim League because it was clear to him that Jinnah never intended Pakistan to be an Islamic state and later lamented that Jinnah’s successors had construed all criticisms of the League as criticisms of Jinnah, and all criticisms of Jinnah as disloyalty to Pakistan.[15] Malik Ghulam ‘Ali, who had been an ardent supporter of Pakistan when he joined the Jama‘at in 1941, recollects that many proponents of Pakistan like himself congregated around Mawdudi. They did not see Mawdudi as anti-Pakistan but viewed his position as reflective of the vision for a “true Pakistan.”[16] The problem of harmonizing the Jama‘at’s roles of holy community and political party unraveled in the face of the Jama‘at’s stand on Muslim separatism.

    Jinnah helped form Mawdudi’s political thinking. It was Jinnah who showed Mawdudi the political potential of religion and, by the same token, blinded him to the importance of socioeconomic factors in the development of the Pakistan movement. Although Mawdudi followed the Muslim League’s example in courting the politically important educated Muslim middle classes, this measure by itself did not constitute a socioeconomic reading of what was involved in the Pakistan movement. For Mawdudi never saw the League’s success as a product of the Congress party’s Hinduization of India under Gandhi’s influence and its subsequent intransigence vis-à-vis Muslim demands, nor did he believe that it was born of the frustrations of the educated Muslim middle classes with British rule. Instead, Mawdudi understood the power of the Muslim League to stem from Jinnah’s appeal to Islamic symbols and Muslim religious sensibilities, and this conviction lay behind his adherence to the idea of the holy community’s political relevance, which early in its existence put a built-in brake on the Jama‘at’s development into a full-fledged party. Time and again over the course of the next four decades, the Jama‘at leaders cited the Muslim League’s famed slogan, “Pakistan ka matlab kiya hey? La ilaha ila’llah” (What is Pakistan about? “There is no god but God”), to prove this point.[17] For Mawdudi the League’s successful use of religious symbols proved that Islam was the ultimate source of power and legitimacy in the Muslim community. The composition of the League’s leadership—which Mawdudi regarded as secular and Westernized men who were at best modernist or “nominal” Muslims—was ample testimony to this.[18] Mawdudi was convinced that Muslim politics would be receptive to intrusive forays by religious forces, which, in turn, emboldened his demand for an Islamic state. He argued that the nature of the Muslim political discourse, as reflected in the increasingly chiliastic program of the Muslim League, attested to the Muslim community’s desire for such a state. Without it why part with India at all? There was no point in substituting Hindu rule with a godless one:[19] “If I could secure one square mile of territory in which none other than God would reign supreme, I would value every speck of its dust more than the entirety of India.”[20]

    In the increasingly religious context in which the struggle for Muslim interests took place—when religion portended power and political success—the Jama‘at’s proclivity for political activity soon turned into an open claim to leadership. Mawdudi believed that the religious tenor of the League’s discourse had created expectations among Muslims which, given the party’s secular nature, it was neither willing nor capable of fulfilling. Only the Jama‘at, argued Mawdudi, was equipped, qualified, and truly willing to advocate the Muslim cause and to deliver on Muslim demands. He was naturally superior to the Westernized Jinnah, who neither prayed nor spoke proper Urdu as a leader for his community.[21] The Muslim League, Mawdudi surmised, could at best only partially satisfy the appetite for the Islamic polity which it had whetted among the Muslims;[22] the League was to be the precursor to “a veritable Pakistan,” pointing the way for the “vanguard”—the Jama‘at—to create and run the Islamic state for the Muslims of India. If Muslims had mobilized so enthusiastically around Muslim League’s half-baked Islamic appeal, then the Jama‘at was bound to sweep away the Pakistan movement once Muslims had heard Mawdudi’s message and learned of the Jama‘at’s religiously more meaningful program. Mawdudi’s conclusion required that the Jama‘at act as a political party, but it also underscored its claim to being a holy community—the true repository of the Islamic message that would shape the future of the Muslims. Thus began the Jama‘at’s muddled understanding of its sociopolitical function.

    Mawdudi also saw the Muslim League as a “one-man show,” and therefore incapable of the kind of organizational activity which the realization of a Muslim state demanded. It was bound to falter with its frail leader and its weak ties to the religious sentiments that were sustaining it. Mawdudi therefore kept his distance from the League, preparing the Jama‘at as a “rear guard” (‘aqab lashgar),[23] waiting in the wings for the opportune moment to step into the Muslim League’s shoes,[24] despite pressures among members for cooperation with the League,[25] especially whenever electoral victory by the Congress threatened. This attitude was most clearly reflected in the Jama‘at’s decision not to support the League in the Indian elections of 1945; Mawdudi argued that he could not render assistance to “a party with no morals.”[26] In later years, he explained: “we did believe in a separate Muslim state, but chose not to interfere with the League. Had the Qa’id [Jinnah] failed, then we would have stepped in.”[27]

    When the Jama‘at was formed in August 1941, then, although it was a direct response to the Muslim League’s Lahore Resolution of March 1940, which resolved to create Pakistan, its intent was not to stop the creation of Pakistan but to take the Muslim League’s place at the head of the struggle for a Muslim state, to prevent Pakistan’s secularization, and to deliver what the Muslim League had promised but could not possibly deliver. The Jama‘at’s agenda and objectives were devised to counter what it saw as the shortcomings of the League, which Mawdudi had viewed as serious enough to warrant the Jama‘at’s “wait-and-see” policy. In May 1939, Mawdudi had asserted that forming the party “implie[d] changing the government.”[28] When the Jama‘at was formed two years later, the only government it sought to change, as is evident from its propaganda and political activities, was that of the future Muslim state.[29] The Jama‘at emerged as a movement leading to the “renaissance” of Islam (nash’at-i naw) that would culminate in the rule of religious law (iqamat-i din), as distinguished from the Muslim League’s territorial and cultural conception of Muslim nationhood combined with a secular government.[30] As early as 1942, the Jama‘at began to devise plans for operating in Pakistan should it materialize.

    Mawdudi’s aversion to the Muslim League and its policies was not only doctrinal but it also had its roots in his understanding of what the trials and tribulations of the Muslims in India had been. For Mawdudi, who had witnessed the decline of the nizam’s state in Hyderabad, Muslim rule by itself was a hollow and ephemeral concept. When and where it had existed, it had not guaranteed the rights and political fortunes of Muslims; it was a model of government the shortcomings of which were borne out by history. If Muslims sought a panacea to their quandary, they had to look farther than the League’s manifesto to the fundamental sources of power and glory in Islam. In Tonk (Rajasthan) in 1947, Mawdudi exclaimed, “[If the Muslim League] sincerely stood up as the true representative of Islam, the whole of India could become ‘Pakistan.’ ”[31]

    From its inception the Jama‘at emphasized the distinction between “Islamic” and “Muslim” and, more important, “Islamic” and “secular.” For instance, it contrasted its members with the secular and Westernized leaders of the Muslim League with their moral laxity and fleeting loyalties, the blatant “opportunism” of the likes of Bengal’s Fazlu’l-Haq, and the “heterodox” faith of the Shi‘i Jinnah, the Isma‘ili Sir Aga Khan, and the Ahmadi Sir Chaudhri Zafaru’llah Khan.[32] By emphasizing this point and comparing their claims that they led the Muslims with its own claim of being a holy community, the Jama‘at gained a political advantage. In so doing it also came perilously close to undermining the League’s leadership, a sin of which the Muslim League has not absolved the Jama‘at to this day. Blunt as Mawdudi had been in his attacks on the Muslim League and its leadership and contrary to assertions by his critics, he did not promulgate an incontrovertibly anti-Pakistan platform. His rhetoric against the League always came in tandem with some form of support for partition.

    The Two-Nation Theory
    In 1935 Mawdudi shared a train compartment with B. G. Kher, the Congress party’s chief minister-designate of Bombay. Mawdudi felt that Kher humiliated those Muslims with whom he came into contact during the trip, and there and then decided that he could not live in a state ruled by Hindus.[33] As idealistic as he may have been, by the late 1930s even he could see that the dream of converting the whole of India to Islam no longer seemed possible. For that reason Mawdudi increasingly succumbed to the communalist feelings that had all along influenced his turn to revivalism and political activism. If he was opposed to Congress’s secular nationalism—aimed at gaining independence for India—it was primarily because he was a Muslim communalist at heart.

    Many, including Mawdudi’s own supporters, have argued that the Jama‘at’s opposition to the Pakistan movement and the Muslim League was only the logical result of Mawdudi’s opposition to secular nationalism. Yet, Mawdudi’s rejection of secular nationalism was neither as steadfast, nor as jejune, as both his critics and his followers suggest. It was communalism, behind the facade of Islam—creating distinctions between the “self” and the “other”—which governed Mawdudi’s binary view of the world as sacred and profane. For Mawdudi, secular nationalism was a threat to communalism, and only for that reason did it feature in his ideological demonology, because secular nationalism meant Congress rule—a “Hindu Raj” in Mawdudi’s words. In 1938, in a lengthy article in Tarjumanu’l-Qur’an, he wrote, “Nehru’s promises of scientific progress and nationalist democracy will be tantamount to the extinction of Islam, and hence Muslims.”[34]

    In the same article Mawdudi systematically attacked Congress’s position on secular nationalism and democracy as unworkable and detrimental to the interests of Indian Muslims. In its place he offered two “two-nation” schemes of his own,[35] proposing a state within a state (riyasat dar riyasat) that echoed Muhammad Iqbal’s demand for a “Muslim India within India.”[36] He then offered plans that would preserve the territorial integrity of India and still give Muslims substantial communal autonomy. The first plan favored dividing India into two “culturally autonomous” democratic entities, which would form the “international federation” of India with a constitution similar to those of “Switzerland, Australia, or the United States.”[37] The constituent entities would be equal partners in running the state, would have distinct boundaries, and would be sovereign in their internal affairs, with the power to formulate and implement their own laws. For matters pertaining to the state as a whole, such as the formulation of its confederate constitution, a constituent assembly would be formed, the members of which would be chosen through elections based on proportional representation.

    Should the first plan not prove popular, Mawdudi devised a second one, in which India would again be reorganized along confederate lines, this time with fourteen territories, thirteen of which—Ajmer, Awadh, Baluchistan, East Bengal, Bhopal, Delhi, Hyderabad, Jawrah, Junagadh, North-West Frontier Province, North and West Punjab, Sind, and Tonk—would be awarded to Muslims, and a single large fourteenth would be Hindu. The thirteen were “justly” suggested by Sayyid ‘Abdu’l-Latif whom Mawdudi lauded for the plan’s wisdom in redrawing the map of India along communal lines. Twenty-five years would be allotted for exchanging populations between the thirteen territories and their Hindu neighbor. The fourteen territories would be bound by an Indian confederacy, but would enjoy sovereignty over their internal affairs. These plans clearly underscored Mawdudi’s communalist inclinations, but still in an Indian framework. But that would not be the case for long. Even at the end of this revealing article he wrote that if the second plan too was rejected, Muslims would “have no choice but to demand a completely autonomous unit, tied together [with its Hindu counterpart] only for defense, communications, and trade,”[38] an idea which was not too distant from what the Congress, the Muslim League, and the viceroy were debating at the time.

    These ideas of Indian confederacy, however, increasingly gave way to sober realization of the fractious direction in which Indian politics were heading. Mawdudi, like most Muslim communalists, began to feel the constraint of the narrowing range of options before him. When asked in 1938–1939 about his choice of the title “Daru’l-Islam” (Abode of Islam) for his project in Pathankot, Mawdudi explained “it means only a Muslim cultural home and not a Muslim state, but if God wills it, the two may become one.”[39] By Muslim state, he surely no longer meant the entirety of India, for he had left South India two years earlier, having concluded that there was no future for Muslims in that region.[40] It was following the elections of 1937, when Indians were given limited self-government, and over the course of the following decade that, like many of his coreligionists who resided in Muslim minority provinces, Mawdudi, too, began to succumb to the temptation of secessionism. As his dream of an “Islamic India” was shattered by harsh realities, talk of converting the whole of India to Islam gave way to talk of an “Islamic state” in a separate Muslim territory. From this point on, the Jama‘at’s relations with the Muslim League became more complex, marked by both competition and concord. Beyond the rivalry which characterized the relations between the two, the basis for a symbiotic relationship anchored in their shared communal outlook also emerged during this period.

    Competition with the Muslim League
    Between 1941 and 1947 the language and tone of the League’s political program was increasingly Islamized, and relations between the two parties in those years were affected by this change in character, which not only created a common ground between the two but also made the Muslim League more susceptible to Mawdudi’s maneuvers. The League’s appeal to Islamic symbols created a niche in the political arena for the Jama‘at and prepared the ground for its activities. The Muslim League’s actions began directly to influence the Jama‘at’s reactions. In collaboration, and more often in confrontation, with the League, the Jama‘at found a political existence, as the League’s policies became the Jama‘at’s calling. When in a speech before the students at Aligarh Muslim University in 1938 Mawdudi first outlined his idea of the Islamic state, he did so by comparing and contrasting it with the Muslim League’s plans for Pakistan.

    So long as he was unsure of the future, Mawdudi had sought to keep his options open by maintaining the Jama‘at’s distance from the Pakistan movement. This did not attest to his aversion to Muslim communalism but to his rivalry with the Muslim League. Behind Mawdudi’s sanctimonious derision of the League’s enterprise lay his own political ambitions. To attract the League’s constituency, the Jama‘at intensified its campaign to expose the “un-Islamic” nature of the Muslim League’s program, believing that a people moved by religious concerns and loyalties were bound to gravitate toward the party that best represented the essence of their communal identity. That Mawdudi was proved wrong suggests that religion could serve as the handmaiden of communalism, but not as its mainstay. Although Muslims were attracted by the Islamic symbols, their political decisions were not religiously motivated. Muslim communalism encompassed Islam, but went far beyond the theological boundaries of the faith. It was not long before it became apparent that the Jama‘at’s campaign had failed to dent the League’s following, let alone derail its plans for Pakistan. Party members, however, did not lose heart and decided that theirs was not a political problem. Mawdudi explained the Jama‘at’s failure to attract a following by citing Jinnah’s wealth and his own comparatively meager means.[41] He could not find much solace in that argument for long, however, and relieved his frustrations by further escalating his scurrilous attacks on the Muslim League.

    From 1939 onward, Mawdudi ceased to attack the Jami‘at-i Ulama and the Congress and directed his invective against the Muslim League instead. As uneasy as the Muslim League felt about Mawdudi’s broadside blasts against Jinnah and his program and despite its reactions to them, he presented no real dangers to the League. For Mawdudi and the Jama‘at in those years had no concrete strategy; their idea of an Islamic state was too vague, intangible, and often unpalatable to the average Muslim to be persuasive; and their hatred of the Congress and the Hindus still outweighed their dislike for the League. More important, unlike the Ahrar, the Jama‘at had never openly sided with the Congress and, unlike the Khaksar, their anti–Muslim League rhetoric had never been translated into violence. Therefore, the Muslim League’s attitude toward the Jama‘at between 1939 and 1947, despite the party’s periodic genuflections toward Mawdudi, remained by and large cautious but cordial.

    The rapport between the two parties was further strengthened by personal and, on occasion, institutional contacts. While the Jama‘at and the League found themselves at loggerheads in the 1940s, the cordial relations between Mawdudi and the League’s leaders continued to determine the Jama‘at’s politics. Chaudhri Muhammad ‘Ali (a future prime minister of Pakistan), himself a deeply religious man, had been an acquaintance of Mawdudi since the 1930s; Nawwab Bahadur Yar Jang, also a pious man and a prominent Muslim League leader, was also close to Mawdudi. They not only reduced Mawdudi’s distance from the League but also tempered the League’s reaction to Mawdudi’s rhetoric. A similar influence was exerted by Muslim League workers who had grown close to the Jama‘at, and on occasion had even joined the party.[42] As a result, Mawdudi himself proved to be more flexible toward the Muslim League than is today thought to have been the case. A copy of Mawdudi’s Islam ka Nazriyah Siyasi (Islam’s Political Views), for instance, inscribed with the compliments of the author, is kept in the collection of Jinnah’s papers at the Ministry of Culture of Pakistan.[43]

    Mawdudi proved even more amenable if Muslim League overtures raised his and the Jama‘at’s standing in the Muslim community. In 1940 the president of the Muslim League of the United Provinces, Nawwab Sir Muhammad Isma‘il Khan invited Mawdudi to participate in the Majlis-i Nizam-i Islami (Council of Islamic Order) in Lucknow, which was convened to devise a plan for incorporating religion into the structure of the future Muslim state. Mawdudi accepted without hesitation.[44] The council was to consist of Isma‘il Khan, Chaudhri Khaliqu’l-Zaman, Nawwab Shamsu’l-Hasan, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi, Mawlana Azad Subhani, ‘Abdu’l-Majid Daryabadi, and Mawdudi.[45] To be invited to this select council with religious luminaries was no doubt a great honor. The Muslim League may have been hard-pressed to find other religious leaders who would attend; or it may have sought to placate Mawdudi through this invitation; or it may have viewed the occasion as an opportunity for rewarding Mawdudi for his denunciation of the Congress and the Jami‘at-i Ulama-i Hind. Isma‘il Khan may also have been asked to invite Mawdudi by his friends among the League’s leaders. Whatever the case, it boosted Mawdudi’s ego and raised his stature as a religious leader. Between 1939 and 1947, the Muslim League paid back the favor Mawdudi had rendered it during the two preceding years by taking on the pro-Congress Muslim leaders.

    Another cooperative effort between the Jama‘at and Muslim League came about at the request of Mawdudi following the Jama‘at’s formation. It pertained to a division of opinion between the Muslim League and the Jama‘at over the ultimate shape of the state of Pakistan. Soon after the formation of the Jama‘at in 1941, Qamaru’ddin Khan, the secretary-general of the Jama‘at, was dispatched to Delhi to meet with Jinnah. Through the good offices of Raja Mahmudabad—a deeply religious and generous patron of the League—a meeting was arranged between Qamaru’ddin Khan and Jinnah at the latter’s residence. During the meeting, which lasted for forty-five minutes, Qamaru’ddin Khan outlined the Jama‘at’s political platform and enjoined Jinnah to commit the League to the Islamic state.[46] Jinnah responded astutely that he saw no incompatibility between the positions of the Muslim League and the Jama‘at, but that the rapid pace at which the events were unfolding did not permit the League to stop at that point simply to define the nature of the future Muslim state: “I will continue to strive for the cause of a separate Muslim state, and you do your services in this regard; our efforts need not be mutually exclusive.” Then he added, “I seek to secure the land for the mosque; once that land belongs to us, then we can decide on how to build the mosque.” The metaphor of the mosque no doubt greatly pleased Qamaru’ddin Khan, who interpreted it as an assurance that the future state would be Islamic. Jinnah, however, cautioned Qamaru’ddin Khan that the achievement of an independent Muslim state took precedence over the “purification of souls.”

    At the time, the Jama‘at decided not to make this meeting public, although it had served to quell the anxieties of the pro-Pakistan members of the Jama‘at and had been seen as a green light for greater political activism by the party. If anything, Jinnah had hinted that his task was only to secure the land for the “mosque”; its building, the Jama‘at concluded, would be the work of the religiously adept. What this meant for the Jama‘at was that a continuum existed between the activities of the Muslim League and those of the Jama‘at; where one ended at partition the other began: the Jama‘at-i Islami was to inherit Pakistan. The symbiotic relationship between the League and the Jama‘at, within a communalist framework, was strengthened.

    As India moved closer to partition, however, the Jama‘at’s competition with the Muslim League intensified, gradually overshadowing the concord which the contacts with the League in 1939–1941 had engendered. Perturbed by the League’s domination of the Pakistan movement, the Jama‘at increasingly focused its energies on undermining Jinnah’s position in the movement. The party’s attacks became more venomous and direct, transforming the relations between the Jama‘at and the League.

    In October 1945, Mawdudi issued what amounted to a religious decree (fatwa) forbidding Muslims to vote for the “secular” Muslim League in the crucial elections of 1945.[47] Muslim League leaders were understandably irritated at such behavior from the head of a party that was not even taking part in the elections and concluded that the move proved the Jama‘at’s pro-Congress sentiments. But, unperturbed by the implications of its anti–Muslim League campaign, the Jama‘at pushed ahead with its line of attack, which by 1947 became caustic vituperations. Mawdudi himself set the tone when in Kawthar in January 1947 he referred to the “Pakistan of the Muslim League” as “faqistan” (the land of the famished) and “langra” Pakistan (crippled Pakistan).[48] While these insults were directed at the secular nature of Jinnah’s program for the new state, they incensed Muslim League leaders and rank-and-file members alike; they were having enough trouble defending their cause against the Congress party. They began to retaliate: when, at a regional Jama‘at-i Islami convention in Madras, Mawdudi said that “the Jama‘at’s sole objective is to present Muslims with virtuous leadership and to stop the ascendancy of a corrupt [fasiq’ufajir] leadership at the helm [of the Pakistan movement],”[49] the crowd erupted into chants of “Long live the Muslim League,” “Long live the qa’id-i a‘zam [Jinnah],” and “Down with the Jami‘at-i Ulama [i.e. the Jami‘at-i Ulama-i Hind].”[50] The crowd then turned the meeting into a Muslim League rally.

    The Congress party was quick to take advantage of these confrontations, and this further deepened the antagonism between the League and the Jama‘at. The subtlety of the Jama‘at’s own communalism was all but drowned by the clamor of its confrontation with the League. Hopeful of enlisting the Jama‘at’s support and anxious to embarrass the League, the Congress openly wooed Mawdudi. In April 1947, during the Jama‘at’s regional convention in Patna, Gandhi attended a lecture by Amin Ahsan Islahi. After the lecture, Congress officials in the city announced that Gandhi had been invited to the session by the Jama‘at’s leaders, and a possible merger of the party into the nationalist movement might be in the making. Gandhi also lauded Islahi and endorsed his views, which the Mahatma argued “attacked the political uses of Islam!”[51] Muslim League officials, already distressed by Mawdudi’s attacks, were finally provoked into saying what some of them had felt all along: the Jama‘at was Congress’s Trojan horse among the Muslims.[52] The pro-Muslim League Nawa’-i Waqt of Lahore led the charge against Mawdudi, accusing him of anti-Pakistan activities, collaboration with the Congress party, and political duplicity.[53] For the Muslim League, the Jama‘at had until that day been at worst a tolerable inconvenience, and at times a valuable “Islamic” tool against the pro-Congress ulama; it was now clearly a nuisance. Gandhi’s remarks changed the balance of relations between the Jama‘at and the Muslim League to the latter’s advantage. The Jama‘at, however, was not reconciled either to this change in its status or to the shift in its debate with the League from questioning the orthodoxy of the Muslim League’s program and leaders to questioning its own loyalty to the Muslim separatist cause.

    Caught off guard, the Jama‘at appealed to Nawa’-i Waqt to publish the whole text of Islahi’s speech that Gandhi had alleged had been favorable to the Congress’s position, and it denied ever having invited Gandhi to the session. Nawa’-i Waqt declined to publish either the text or the denial; the League was not going to let Mawdudi off the hook that easily. To the dismay of the Congress, in May Mawdudi issued another salvo against the “secular, irreligious nationalist democracy” promised by the League, but sensing the adverse climate, desisted from attacking it further. In June 1947, Mawdudi wrote an open letter to the Muslims of India, encouraging them to choose Pakistan over the “Indian Republic,” and in July 1947 he encouraged the Muslims of the North-West Frontier Province to turn out their Congress ministry and to vote for Pakistan in the referendum which was scheduled to decide the fate of that province.[54] In the same month, he issued a terse rebuttal to the well-publicized and damaging charge by the Congress that those Muslims who complained about the idea of the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine—as many Indian Muslims including Jinnah had—could hardly justify their demand for a Muslim one.[55] Fearful of giving vent to accusations of being anti-Pakistan, the party withdrew into the “splendid isolation” of Pathankot.

    Although the birth of Pakistan followed an ebb in the relations between the Jama‘at and the Muslim League, the concord which had characterized the relations between the two until 1945 continued to define their relationship at a more fundamental level. Since both were ultimately striving to secure communal rights for Muslims, the Jama‘at and Muslim League each legitimated the political function of the other in furthering their common communalist cause. It was the structure of this relationship that determined the interactions between the Jama‘at and the fruit of the League’s toil—the Pakistan state—more than their bickering over the nature of that state may suggest. The Jama‘at legitimated communalism in Islamic terms and helped the League find a base of support by appealing to religious symbols. The Muslim League, in turn, increasingly Islamized the political discourse on Pakistan to the Jama‘at’s advantage, creating a suitable gateway for the party’s entry into the political fray. The Muslim League leaders elevated the Jama‘at’s status, while institutional contacts and personal links between the two parties gave more concrete shape to the structure of relations between the two. Conflict, contact, and concord was rooted in communal interests and the legitimating role of Islam. That framework has governed the scope and nature of relations between the two parties since partition.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:17 #
  45. Salam

    Muslim unity emanates from Ideology of Islam which brought different provinces together. Today based on same principle Ulema oppose Baloch nation-state proposal and we appreciate that because now this Islamic principle is in the interest of Pakistan.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:19 #
  46. jaypk

    @amir..jaypk We should honor everyone who participated in the creation of pakistan. If you are afraid to do so for any reason than what does that say?

    i have said and given my statement..i have written who supported and given them credit and i have quoted thr names who were against the creation very clearly.....i haev also shared a thought wid you thts its nt fear its just the approach of our ppl whcih can be moulded easily...take your example..i have said eveything clearly but you are still beating the bush tht whd i m a afraid of..:) thts whd i was trying to point out!!...whd else do you want me to do??....jumay ko rally nikalon kia?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:31 #
  47. amirbutt

    jjkhan adnak
    I would request you to please stay on topic which is role of ulema in creation of Pakistan.
    You should act like Maula Jatt when it comes to honoring people who created Pakistan. Instead of being afraid you need to dig the gundasa out.
    motivation video for jaypk

    watch at 6:20

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:36 #
  48. netengr


    nice video :)

    see this Fazlullah (mustafa Qreshi )

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 13:59 #
  49. Salam


    The Muslim stance of unity is pretty much the subject here. There is no disagreement among Muslims on unity of Ummah.

    This whole book that you are copying pasting here can be summed up as:

    The rise of Islamic revivalism has presented a serious challenge to conventional secularism and as a result has been the subject of considerable debate and inquiry.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:04 #
  50. Salam

    The author of the book is attempting to address:

    The resurgence of an activism that both rejects and defies Western modernization and preaches submission to the writ of Islamic law in societies requires a redefinition of the very notion of modernization itself, both as a process and as an intellectual construct.

    So why not discuss the real subject of the book instead of wasting time on historical events?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:09 #
  51. amirbutt

    wasting time on historical events?
    lol thank you that is the quote of the month.
    Is that how you view the movement of creation of Pakistan?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:17 #
  52. Salam

    No, I don't view like that but the way you are playing here is waste of time.

    Copying chapters of the book while missing the real objective of the author.

    Why not discuss/debate real objective and motivation of the author -as quoted above?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:27 #
  53. amirbutt

    This thread is about role of ulema in the creation of pakistan. The post above is to show there was no contribution of maudaudi and jamat islami in the movement of creation of Pakistan. Feel free to open up a new thread on any subject you like.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:35 #
  54. Salam

    No, the subject is the book copied/pasted here repeatedly. Quoting things out of context doesn't support work done by the author.

    What I quoted above is from same source that you copied from.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:37 #
  55. SufiSoul

    Ulema always want Qabza over non-muslim nations.So they were angry by loosing grt part of India.This was the issue.
    NOW Ulema/Mullah have started another movement for Qabza started from Pakistan to India and Pelistine will be the end...
    This was the whole stroy rejecting Pakistan as a separate nation......
    You may assume Al-Qaida is the extention of that group of Ulema/Mullah opposing Pakistan's movement..
    Lota G bus yahi sari kahani hy.......:)

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:42 #
  56. amirbutt

    Sultan Muhammad Shah was born in 1877 at Karachi. At the age of eight he lost his father Aly Shah, the Aga Khan II, and assumed the title of Aga Khan III, thus becoming the hereditary spiritual leader of the Ismaili sect. Too young to cope with the responsibilities as the head of the Ismaili Muslims he was ably assisted by his mother in religious and financial affairs. Aga Khan learnt Arabic and Persian from well-known teachers. He also studied theology, philosophy and Persian poetry. In 1902, at the age of 25, he was appointed a member of the Imperial Legislative Council, thus becoming the youngest member of the council.
    Aga Khan, like many other great Muslim leaders, realized that the main cause of Muslim backwardness was their negligence towards education. He worked towards increasing Muslim education by not only increasing his grant to M. A. O. College, but also by generating funds for a Muslim University. By his efforts 3 million rupees were collected, which helped in laying a solid foundation of Aligarh University.

    Aga Khan also greatly contributed towards the political cause of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. He led the Muslim delegation to Simla in 1906 where the Muslims, for the first time, put forward their demand for a separate electorate. He was elected the first president of All India Muslim League in 1906, an office that he held till 1912. Aga Khan was a man of vision and was of the opinion that the reform scheme introduced by the British would be beneficial to the Muslims. He wrote a book on the need of reforms for the Muslims, known as "India in Transition", which was published in 1918.

    During the Khilafat Movement, Aga Khan struggled to control the breakup of the Caliphate by taking up the issue at international forums. Aga Khan wrote letters to the "Times of London", pleading the case for continuation of the Caliphate. He also led a delegation of Indian Muslim leaders to the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George. Aga Khan continued to work for the cause of the Muslim on every front. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Peace in January 1924 because of his work for maintaining peace between Turkey and the western powers after the peace agreement.

    He was president of the All Parties Muslim Conference held in 1928-29. In 1930-33, he went as chairman of the Muslim delegation to the Round Table Conferences. In 1932, he suggested a pact of minorities, which facilitated the announcement of the Communal Award. He was nominated to represent India at the League of Nations in 1932, where he continued to work until the outbreak of the World War II. He was an excellent statesman and was elected President of the League of Nations in July 1937. He was the only Asian to have been appointed to this high office. During the World War II, Aga Khan was forced to live in Switzerland and was unable to actively participate in the affairs of the Muslims of India.

    Pakistan's creation owes a great deal to the hard work of Aga Khan. After the creation of Pakistan, Aga Khan remained a friend and a well-wisher of Pakistan. Aga Khan fell ill in 1954 during his visit to Dhaka and from then on struggling with ill health, died on July 11, 1957 of a heart attack in Switzerland. He was buried in Egypt. After his death, he was succeeded by his grandson, Aga Khan the IV.

    Born in 1893 in Sialkot in what was to become one of the earliest Ahmaddiya households, this small town boy rose to be one of the shrewdest legal minds of his time. His early education was in Sialkot, after which he proceeded to Lahore for his bachelors degree, under the tutelage of none other than the great Iqbal himself. He got his law degree from King’s College London in 1914, where he stood top of his class and was the first person from the Indian subcontinent to do so. He was, like most great figures of that time, called to bar at Lincoln’s Inn.
    As a practicing lawyer, he soon proved his mettle and had many reported cases to his name. The first major politician to recognize Zafrullah’s talents was Sir Fazli Hussain, the founder of Unionist Party of Punjab. Starting his career in his early 30s as a member of the Punjab legislative Council, he rose to prominence as an indefatigable crusader for Muslims of Punjab. Later he represented the Muslims at round table conference and crossed swords with figures like Jinnah and Gandhi. In 1931, he became the Muslim League president and at the roundtable conference, he cornered no less a person than Churchill in a committee hearing who was forced to accept Zafrullah’s point of view.

    Later he was offered a seat on Viceroy’s permanent Council, which he took to further his cause. He also served at varying times as the minister of Railways, Public works, labour and law under the Viceroy. For a brief period, he also became British India’s representative to the League of Nations, just before it was dissolved.
    However his greatest contribution came when he drafted the famous Lahore Resolution, which till this day is the rallying point of Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism. He had been tasked with finding a common point between the popular demand for “Pakistan” and Muslim League’s all India requirements. The Lahore resolution was a broad based solution which left the door virtually open for several solutions and negotiation on the issue of partition. In essence it envisaged 2 or 3 great republics for the Muslim peoples and it was this document which forms the basis not just of Pakistan but also of Bangladesh. For this he got a lot of slack. No less a person than Khan Abdul Wali Khan highlighted Zafrullah’s religious belief to play on the popular conspiracy theory that holds Ahmadis to be British touts.

    Later from 1942 onwards, he served as a federal judge (equivalent of an Supreme court C judge) of India and finally took leave on the eve of Pakistan to serve the cause of Pakistan before the Radcliffe Commission, on Jinnah’s personal request. On 25th December 1947, Jinnah appointed him the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. At the UN, Sir Zafrullah emerged as the most eloquent advocate of all third world and Islamic issues. It was Zafrullah whose efforts materialized into the UN Resolutions on Kashmir, which are the basis of the Pakistani case and grievance. Later he became the first Asian president of the International Court of Justice, a singular and unique honor for any Pakistani. He also served, briefly, as the President of the UN General Assembly. He passed away in September of 1983 in Lahore.

    A prolific author on the history of Pakistan and Islam, his most famous book was titled “Agony of Pakistan” in which he makes plain the great betrayal which wrested the country from the hands of its patriots into the hands of those who were its greatest enemies. Ironically, today Jinnah’s most trusted lieutenant is not even remembered by the state which owes him so much, including its own founding document. It is the memory of people like Zafrullah Khan that will keep alive the original idea of Pakistan and there is no doubt that one day the posterity will reclaim its true destiny as a progressive and modern republic.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:43 #
  57. zia m

    The author comes to the conclusion amongst other things..........

    "Islam, which should have served to unite the people of Pakistan -- over 90 percent of them being Muslims -- has been, and is being, misused to divide them into mutually hostile sectarian groups and to divert their attention from basic social and economic problems.[84] The myth of popular support for religious parties has repeatedly been exploded by the electorate. Yet, sectarian and religious hate mongers have proliferated.[85] Major parties are courting leaders of religious parties, while latter's militias continue fanning the flames of sectarianism.[86] The only all-Pakistan force that seems to be growing uniformly is sectarianism."

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:46 #
  58. Salam


    Nice one... lolz!

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 14:52 #
  59. amirbutt

    Choudhary Rahmat Ali [1895-1951]
    Chaudhry Rahmat Ali, founder of the Pakistan National Movement, was born in 1895. From his early childhood, Rahmat Ali showed signs of great promise as a student. After completing his schooling, he joined the Islamia College of Lahore in order to get his Bachelor of Arts degree. Rahmat Ali finished education in England, obtaining MA and LLB with honors from the universities of Cambridge and Dublin.
    It was during the years 1930 through 1933, that he seemed to have established the Pakistan National Movement, with its headquarter at Cambridge. On January 28, 1933, he issued his first memorable pamphlet "Now or Never; Are we to live or perish forever?" He coined the word "Pakistan" for 30 million Muslims who live in the five northern units of India; Punjab, North West Frontier (Afghan) Province, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan. The pamphlet also gave reasons for the establishment of Pakistan as a separate nation. He spoke of an independent homeland for Muslims, Pakistan, in the northern units of India, "Bang-i-Islam" for Muslims in Bengal, and "Usmanistan" for the Muslims in Hyderabad-Deccan.

    Chaudhry Rahmat Ali propagated the Scheme of Pakistan with a missionary zeal since its inception in 1933. In August 1947, Pakistan came to be established and in 1948 Chaudhry Rahmat Ali visited Pakistan. Later he proceeded to England to champion the cause of Kashmir through the United Nations.

    Sick and weak, he died on February 12, 1951.

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 15:01 #
  60. Salam

    What is going on here?

    Any moderator paying attention to the level of copy paste coming from a new member?

    Posted 6 years ago on 21 Dec 2009 15:04 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.