Dr. Safdar Mehmood's column

http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2010-daily/20-06-2010/col2.htm

what is really worrying is the reach these 'scholars' have through newspapers such as Jung which is most widely read in Pakistan. What historical sense people will gain? His opinion that Muslim League was a democratic party(we need to know how Muslim League council functioned?); that Musalmans of India voted for Pakistan (75% ?????, in NWFP there ... See Morewas boycott by majority); the massacres during partition were planned by Sikhs(who was killing Hindus and Sikhs in NWFP, Punjab and even in Sindh?); all these points are questionable and need scrutiny.
First book I came to access; published on Muslim League is "The Muslim League: its history, activities & achievements" by Lal Bahadur published by Agra Book Store in 1954, AHAM.
"The All India Muslim League, 1906-47" by Nadeem Shafiq Malik, Published by National Book Foundation in 1997??? Is it the first official written history of the founding party of the country? in 1997? ok after finishing 50 years in being, someone thought that it is a good idea.

"The History Of The Indian National Congress" by Pattabhi Sita Ramaiah was published in 1935 by working committee of INC. I have this book, may be not very scholarly but it shows the sense of direction of the people and workers and their leaders. Muslim League sadly has no such record.

And then he is calling 'thankless' those who want to know, how much healthy is such behavior for a progressive nation? what he wants people to do? just accept whatever thought to them without saying nay, without asking its credibility, without trying to understand the motive.
Pitty we have such people followed and acknowledged!

Maulana Azad on Partition of India

This is a historic speech from a well known scholar and a National leader of India. If we listen to it calmly and with an open mind, we can understand most of what he perceived earlier was right, whatever be the reason division can only bring more division. That is why I adore Abraham Lincoln and his fellow leaders of America that they never accepted division of United States, though it was an easy option. I wish our leaders (weather from Muslim League or Indian National Congress)could have that far sightedness, broad vision, tolerance and lesser egos and of course a lesser appetite for power.

Those who put forward state of current Indian affairs as an argument in favor of communalism which include emergence to power of Far right political parties like BJP or RSSS, and the communal violence against minorities; they tend to forget to look on the other side of picture which includes the secular parties and a past (more than a thousands year now) and present in which Hindus and Muslims still live peacefully together, shall I put forward examples of Kerala and Soorat? There is no violence against Muslims or any other Minority in many states of India. Communal problem has many aspects which need research and a policy of tolerance before one can embark on commenting or forming an opinion. If you start from 'Nay' you are not expected to reach any where, as Naysayers always do in all walks of life.

In Pakistan, major problem is how history is written and 'preached' to the younger generations, they have never been thought tolerance, our history as well as literature is full of wars and ultimate success. We are not told that war has a price, which we all have to pay, we have not been told about the masses who suffered during wars (holy or not), the people who were massacred, the women who were raped or enslaved, the man who were killed, their families who suffered from hunger and devastation, they are all out of our history, even if they were our own.

So as the communal problem in India, if Hindus were that bad how come our ancestors managed to live with them for more than thousand years, how came most of us are off springs of Hindus who embarrassed Islam, why not they were killed by their relations and how was this tolerated by the society? India was ruled in a decentralized way by Muslim Sultans and then Mughals, their administrative framework was geared to keep the treasury full, they never bothered to alter the Indian society hence their influence on common people was negligible and most of people in their armies and administrative work force were Hindus. Islam spread amongst masses not by force but due to other more peaceful reasons, by force it was not possible convert India to Islam and hence it was not tried otherwise what was better than that? The first Arab Governer in India Muhammed Bin Qasim never tried a mass conversion of Indian masses to Islam, as he was not ordered to do so and that was not the policy of Arabs. All Muslim rulers who came in to India after him, followed same policies. SO how was it possible that we lived and prosper for more than thousand years in Hindu majority India and all changed within hundred years of British arrival? If we see India at the time of arrival of western powers, it was by no means a Muslim ruled country, as Mughals were declined and most of India was ruled by independent rulers (both Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs), there was a communal identity but not a division.

History has been thought to Pakistanis from a communal point of view so that they can not look at the big picture which serves the interest of our ruling elite.

And forget about the Muslims of India, we do not have to do anything with them now, just like we do not have to do anything with the Bangladesh and its people. Consequences of this mentality are appearing brightly as we now have nationalist movements inside Pakistan. No matter how hard we try to blame others, it is our deed and we have to resolve or we will have to face the consequences.

On Independence Day after reading some comments on facebook

So why it is important for us to learn history and to look at the past critically? That question is always important, must be asked and replied again and again so that no one forgets what is there in past for us, and how can we make progress by learning from the past. I was looking on comments by a friend on facebook, on occasions of 62nd independence day of the subcontinent; he has talked about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and his thoughts on creation of Pakistan. Several people have commented on his thoughts and I was just reviewing them, there is much to observe in those comments, it tells a lot about how we pakistanis react when we face challenges to our commonly accepted beliefs.

Fact is that there are very few controversies in history like the partition of India, it is surrounded by so much conflicts, confusion, hatred and blood that it is not easy for any one to look at the events transparently. The states who came into being after the partition, continued the tradition of hatred and controversy which added into the complexity and truth became the last priority in saving the interests of states, parties, faiths and sects.

Question is that why shall we seek to clear the blur picture of partition of India? why is it important for us to understand the factors behind the drama of partition? and why it is important for Pakistan and Pakistanis? Those who have argument against my friend, insist the same that it is useless to raise questions, that past is past and Pakistan is a reality, that we must not cast a doubt on the history we read about Pakistan. Another common sentimental reaction is to ask how much sacrifices we have made for Pakistan? If we talk about Pakistan with caution, if we want to debate about its history, we are not worthy Pakistanis. Another dangerous trend is to divide the scholars and leaders based on their association to that of Congress or Muslim League etc.

Partition of India set the base of a rivalry between India and Pakistan, which can only be addressed if we analyze what happened in history; which events, situations, sentiments, motives and interests lead to rising communalism in India and ended up on partition. If we figure out those root causes of the conflict, we can better address them on a common ground and hence we can lie the foundation of a peaceful future and we can look out to solve our conflicts. It is not necessary that history repeats itself and we continue the mentality of war and hatred.

So it should be clear that it is necessary for us to ask what happened in past and try to understand it, so that we can improve. We at present are raised up with believes that all hindus are our enemies, we justify our wars with India based on same theory, we always feel insecure because of same theory of communalism, we think only we have right to live, we think all those who live on the other side of border are not humans, we think of them as enemies, not like fathers, brother, mothers, sisters, sons and daughters they are, we never think of them like us. We forget that there is a muslim population almost equal to 138 million in India. We have been told to hate Indians, so that we can keep quite on ridiculous expenses on defense, so that we do not object on the status quo in Pakistan, so that things can remain in same way they are. Think about your problems, and if you are willing to solve them, you will have to ask questions, you will have to cast doubt. Things can never be isolated, events are related to each other, so without past we can not trace our present problems, hence we can not solve them.

And those who talk about sacrifices, I think, to ask question, to raise doubt and voice against accepted beliefs is the biggest sacrifice. It is not easy to stand away from the crowd. And it needs courage to say no, one has to pay the price and face isolation, rejection, and sometimes hatred and brutality as well. We must welcome those who can ask why........

Now I come to the third dangerous trend, as Pakistanis where shall we classify Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah or Azad? Was Gandhi can be simply confined to the status of just simply a congressman? or Nehru or Azad? Was Jinnah just a communalist? an advocate of muslim separation from India? I am sure history is not that simple, and these personalities can not be simply confined into their political association only. These people were much more than simple politicians. Azad was a Islamic scholar of repute, a linguist, a writer, a philosopher, then he was a congressman. Gandhi was an inspiration for the world, he lead a mass movement in an India which was largely divided, uneducated, undisciplined; he gave India a hope, a hope to rise again, he was not just a politician. So was Jinnah, a secular moderate who was inspired by Renade, Gokhle and Feroz Shah Mehta, a Lawyer of unprecedented reputation, a leader of hindus and muslims, who later chose a path which was never ideal for him but he was forced to opt for it, he was never happy for the 'moth eaten Pakistan' he got. he was too a leader of India, not just muslims or Pakistan. All those leaders were leaders of India, a far bigger and united India than we can imagine.

"I have saved this answer to a foreign friend in answer to her question 'where we see Pakistan stand in future?' it was immediately after release of some brutal videos in which people were seen get slaughtered and then that incident in Sawat when a girl was beaten in public."

Well from my own understanding of the history and politics of this region, Pakistan do not stand aloof from rest of sub-continent, i.e. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nepal, you may also count in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka (Nevertheless we have got a new name 'AfPak' which is a hint in itself). The point I am trying to present is simple, this area as a whole is always part of the 'great game' played by empires since last few centuries, secondly Muslims of the area form an entity which is different in terms of culture, tradition and languages from rest of Muslim world, but for sure it is influenced by and it has influenced the Muslim thought since a long time. Some of the examples are Jamal-ud-din Afghani, Iqbal, Moudodi, Maulana Ilyas, Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz, and Dr. Hameed-Ullah.

Deoband the origin of famous school of thought 'Deobandi' from which the Taliban belongs, is in India, so as Bareli the origin of most practised one 'Barelvi' amongst the Muslims of this region. History has been distorted in a way that it has become very difficult for someone living today to understand that Muslims of Indian Sub Continent had their own identity, and they still do. This truth however is not in interest of any of the parties involved in current game, most importantly India, Pakistan and US. Governments of India and Pakistan throughout the time have played a major role in destroying history to suit their motives and interests. Another important factor is movement of 'Hindutva' in India, which has influenced and changed the total behaviour and thought of new generations in the region.

When generation are cut off from their past in that way, they go into darkness, and look here and there in search of their identity. Pan-Islamism is just one of solutions of this identity crisis for most of us; an easy solution may be, as it is in line with our belief as Muslims. What we tend to overlook

However is that culture and religion are two separate forms of recognition and belonging. In our daily lives, we try to be within our cultural circle, we(when I say we, it means Muslims) tend to marry within our own type, we cannot communicate with each other if we do not know some of global languages, we cannot like to eat some of the foods(halal) of other regions. Pathan cannot eat rice regularly :), and Bengali cannot live without it. Still we are Muslims, and we observe Islamic customs and laws. So where is the problem? Muslims of this region started to look outside for their cultural identity or they were forced to do so, it is where the doubt is, and it is where the peace is. Cultural unity and a common history (even if it is full of conflicts or interpreted as full of conflicts) is the biggest threat to anyone who does not want peace in this region. Why? Because when we look at common culture, not only Muslims but the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis; everyone who

lives in this region, becomes closer to each other, I am sure if any one who is longing after power in this region, can tolerate such unity, or any traces of such unity amongst the masses.

You should have asked where we want Pakistan to stand in future instead of where it will stand. At present, we do not want anything but chaos!