Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category QUAID-I-AZAM

In memory of Quaid-e-Azam by Brig (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja

In memory of Quaid-e-Azam

Asif Haroon Raja

 

 

The nation celebrated the 145th birth anniversary of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah today on 25th December with zeal and fervor. The Creation of Pakistan in a short period of 7 years after the historic Lahore resolution on March 23, 1940 was a miracle of the 20th century. The Muslims of India suffering under the yoke of British-Hindu combine since 1757 loved Jinnah and out of reverence named him Quaid-e-Azam.

 

 

 

Man of steel nerves and strong conviction, Jinnah was a man of taste, he spoke eloquently and dressed immaculately. None could outclass him in arguments. The illiterate people flocking to his public meetings listened to his speeches delivered in English with rapt attention without understanding what he was saying. Their simple reply was, ‘whatever he was saying must be correct and for our good’.

Jinnah lived all his life by a strict code of personal ethics and never compromised on principles. His personal sense of disciple was renowned and he tried to install this quality into the Muslim League and the Muslim masses that he was able to influence. His sharp intellect and a quick grasp of an unfolding situation were astounding. This unique gift enabled him to battle single-handed on the chessboard of politics against a powerful coalition of adversaries and win. Achieving Pakistan in the face of stiff opposition from those protagonists of a United Bharat and the foot dragging by the British was in itself a brilliant feat.  

His personal physician had diagnosed his disease of tuberculosis and had cautioned him that he had not more than two years to live and that too if he rested and took care. Knowing the ill-intentions of the Congress leaders and the British who were against the partitioning of India, Mr. Jinnah told him not to divulge his disease and the doctor honored his commitment. Despite his illness, he struggled day and night and removed all obstacles placed in the way of creation of Pakistan.

Creating a new nation had taken all the character, foresight, faith and energy of the Quaid. What made Jinnah taller than his contemporaries was his unselfishness. His struggle for Pakistan was not for glory or fame. History has rarely produced such an example of selflessness and high moral standing.

After his demise on September 11, 1948, and revelation of the hidden disease, Mountbatten remarked that if he had any inkling of the deadly disease and his short life expectancy, he would have deferred the partition plan for some years and awaited his death. He knew that without him there was no one else who could compel him to allow the partition of India and there would have been no Pakistan.

How right was Quaid-e-Azam when he stated that “the Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend the rest of their lives proving their loyalty to India”. Today the pro-India Indian Muslims and the successors of Sheikh Abdullah and other Kashmiri leaders are repenting their decision to prefer India over Pakistan.  

Not a single leader who came after MA Jinnah came anywhere close to his stature. Each leader sang his song and quoted his ideals but none emulated his pristine principles and instead placed self before national interests.  

Stanley Wolpert described him in these words in his book ‘Jinnah of Pakistan’: “few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three”.

Hector Bolitho in his book ‘Jinnah Creator of Pakistan’ narrated: “Jinnah made a forlorn scattered multitude into a nation”. He added, “Unlike the creators of other nations, such as Washington, Cavour and Bismarck, Jinnah achieved his aim without the support of an army”.  

R.G. Casey Governor Bengal wrote: “It is not too much to say that Mr. Jinnah is the only outstanding Muslim of all-India stature in Indian politics today…He is man of iron discipline and he has denied himself the luxury of any qualities which might loosen his concentration upon his purpose”. (Verdict of India, Jinnah: Creator of Pakistan).

Lord Listowel rated Mr. Jinnah as a bigger political giant of the 20th century than even Gen De Gaulle. Harry Truman considered him as the recipient of the devotion of loyalty seldom accorded to any man.

John Biggs Davison said, “Although without Gandhi, Hindustan would have gained independence, and without Lenin and Mao, Russia and China would still have endured the communist revolution, however, without Jinnah there would have been no Pakistan in 1947”.

Gordon Johnson said, “Mr. Jinnah set a great example to other statesmen to follow by his skill in negotiations, his integrity and his honesty”.

The British author Beverly Nicholas judged Jinnah as the most important man in Asia because he could sway the battle this way or that as he chose. He opined that “Jinnah’s 100 million Muslims will march to the left, to the right, to the front, to the rear at his bidding, and to nobody else’s. It’s not the same in Hindu ranks. If Gandhi goes, there is Nehru, or Raja Gopalachari, or Patel or a dozen others, but if Jinnah goes, who is there?” He further described the difference between Jinnah and the typical Hindu politicians saying comparison was of a surgeon and witch doctors. (Verdict of India).

Sir Francis Mudie, Governor of Punjab who knew Jinnah since 1936 observed, “Jinnah impressed me more, I think than anyone else I have ever met, and I was very fond of him. He never compromised officially”. He added, “In judging Jinnah, we must remember what he was up against. He had against him not only the wealth and brains of the Hindus, but also nearly the whole of British officialdom and most Home (England) politicians, who made the great mistake of refusing to take Pakistan seriously”. He missed the Muslim political and religious leaders opposed to the idea of Pakistan.    

Sir Agha Khan 111 said, “Of all the statesmen that I have known in my life, – Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Churchill, Curzon, Mussolini, Mahatma Gandhi – Jinnah is the most remarkable. None of these men in my view outshone him in strength of character”.

2nd last Viceroy of India Wavell mentioned, “Mr. Jinnah was one of the handsomest men I have ever seen; he combined the clear cut, almost Grecian features of the West with Oriental grace and movement”.  

The last Viceroy of India Lord Mountbatten remarked, “Jinnah never made an agreement by bowing down to anyone but on equal basis”.  

Pathick Lawrence said, “Gandhi died by the hands of an assassin, Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan”.  

Gokhale called him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mahatma Gandhi opined, “Mr. Jinnah is incorruptible and brave. I believe no power can buy him”.   

Jawaharlal Nehru said, “Good character and good politics were those secrets due to which Jinnah got success”.  (The Discovery of India).

Allama Iqbal stated, “MA Jinnah is the only personality of India from whom the whole nation has expectations”.  

Jinnah’s ADC Mian Atta Rabbani in his book ‘Jinnah a Political Saint’ wrote, “MA Jinnah was no Wali or a Saint in terms of religious terminology, but he was certainly a political saint for the Muslims of the subcontinent.  As a political saint he turned the Muslims minority of the Indian subcontinent into a nation and emancipated them from the evil axis of Anglo-Hindu tyranny and domination by guiding and leading them to eventual goal of Pakistan, a safe haven for them, and established the largest Muslim State.

  1. H. Enverdescribed the Quaid as ‘the modern Moses’.   (The Modern Moses).
  2. Sharifuddin Pirzadasummed up the profile of legendary Quaid in these words: “Jinnah possessed Ataturk’s astuteness, Bismarck’s boldness, Churchill’s charisma, De Gaulle’s dignity, Lincoln’s liberalism and Mao Tse Tung’s magnetism. Jinnah was incorruptible, candid, consistent and undoubtedly a colossus”.

Some of the sayings of MA Jinnah:“Our foreign policy is one of friendliness and goodwill towards all the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation”“With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that cannot be achieved”.“Think hundred times before you take a decision; but once that decision is taken, stand by it as One Man”.“A Muslim is not born to give up. If he is forced to be enslaved, he will become Babur. He will emerge as Sultan Tipu. He can happily embrace martyrdom but will never accept slavery”.The Quaid’s fantastic decision making ability is reflected in his statement, “I do not believe in taking the right decision. I take a decision and make it right”.   Thank you Quaid-e-Azam for bestowing upon us the priceless gift of Pakistan. We apologize for not living up to your ideals and aspirations and failed to make Pakistan a model Islamic welfare state as had been envisioned by you. May your soul rest in peace and be granted the highest place in Heaven!The writer is retired Brig Gen, war veteran, defence & security analyst, international columnist, Chairman Tinkers Forum Pakistan, Director Measac Research Centre, Member CWC PESS & Member Veteran Think Tank; Member Council TJP. asifharoonraja@gmail.com

Khan Zia

Just for interest, I had a lengthy meeting with Lord Listowel, who had been the last Secretary of State for India in the Attlee government, before writing the book, ‘Pakistan:Roots, Perspective and Genesis’. During this, he repeatedly used the phrase, ‘without Jinnah there would not have been any Pakistan.‘ He said this was not simply because the Congress Party was opposed to it but also the entire British establishment in India as well as Britain. 

For what it is worth, I have little doubt that the British only relented because they expected a civil war to break out and wanted to get out before that happened. To get the Congress to accept partition, they carved out Pakistan in the way they did and set an impossible date for Jinnah to get the country going that ensured it would collapse and rejoin India soon after birth. You might like to see some of the evidence that I have pieced together below:

How Pakistan Was Set Up to Fail

(K. Hussan Zia)

When the idea of a separate state or states to safeguard the interests of Muslims of India was first officially adopted by the Muslim League at its annual session in March 1940 it met with strong opposition not only by the Congress and other Hindu parties but also by the British as well as Muslim religious parties including Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the Ahrars as well as Khaksars. The latter made two attempts on Jinnah’s life and even succeeded in wounding him on one occasion. In August 1942, the Akali Sikh leader Gayani Kartar Singh proclaimed in Amritsar, ‘If Pakistan is foisted upon the Sikhs with the help of British bayonets, we shall tear it into shreds as Guru Gobind Singh tore up the Mughal Empire’ (‘A History of the Sikhs, vol. 2, by Khushwant Singh, New Delhi, 1991, p. 252).

 

Master Tara Singh threatened a Sikh uprising and declared an ‘Anti-Pakistan Day’ on 11th March 1947. In a fiery speech from the steps of the Provincial Legislature he denounced Muslims, Jinnah and Pakistan ‘Our motherland is calling for blood and we shall satiate the thirst of our motherland with blood —- I have sounded the bugle. Finish the Muslim League’. He then proclaimed the Sikh slogan ‘Raj karay ga Khalsa baki rahay na ko’ (only the pure Sikhs will rule; no one else will survive) and proceeded to hack down the pole bearing the Muslim League flag and tore the banner to shreds with his kirpan (dagger) to the shouts of Pakistan Murdabad —- death to Pakistan (The Punjab Boundary Force and the Problem of Order, August 1947, vol.8, by Robin Jeffrey, as quoted by French).

 

How Pakistan came into being despite such formidable opposition is a question that is often asked. The simple answer lies in the conviction and resolve of the Muslims of India to have a space of their own where they could live freely, without being dominated by the Hindus. Exhausted by the long war, Britain realized she could no longer hold on and decided to give India her freedom. It only remained to be decided in what form power should be transferred to avoid chaos and possible civil war.

A country-wide election to the Central and Provincial Assemblies was held at the end of 1945 in which the Congress Party fielded candidates on the Muslim as well as non-Muslim seats for a united India. Muslim League, on the other hand, contested only in the seats reserved for the Muslims as did various other Islamic religious and regional parties like the Unionists, that had opposed the creation of Pakistan.

 

Muslim League won eighty-seven percent of the Muslim votes cast and every single seat reserved for them in the Central Assembly. It also won 428 of the total 492 (87 percent) seats in the Provincial Assemblies. In Sind, it won all but one seat. In Bengal, the League collared ninety percent of the vote. In NWFP it fell one vote short of a majority in the Assembly and Dr. Khan Sahib of the Khudaee Khidmatgars formed the government with the help of the Congress Party. In Punjab, the League bagged 79 of the 86 seats reserved for Muslims and was the largest party in the Assembly but the Governor called on Sir Khizar Hayat Tiwana, who’s Unionist Party had only ten seats, to form the government in collaboration with Congress and assorted Hindu and Sikh groups.

The election firmly established two facts —- that the Muslims did not want to be a part of Hindu-dominated united India and secondly, it was only the Muslim League that represented the interest and aspirations of their vast majority.

There were intelligence reports that the Congress was soon going to embark on plans to overthrow the government through a large-scale mass movement. Viceroy Wavell cabled Pethick-Lawrence, the British secretary of state that Congress leaders had been making speeches ‘intended to provoke or pave the way for mass disorder —- asserting that the British could be turned out of India within a very short time; denying the possibility of a compromise with the Muslim League; glorifying the INA; and threatening the officials who took part in the suppression of the 1942 disturbances with trial and punishment as war criminals’ (Transfer of Power Documents 1942 – 1947, Vol VI, p. 451).

Wavell assessed the political situation in India at the time as: ‘Congress feel that HMG dare not break with them —- their aim is power and to get rid of British influence as soon as possible, after which they think they can deal with both Muslims and Princes; the former by bribery —- and if necessary by force; the latter by stirring up their people against them. —- They will continue —- until they consider themselves strong enough to —- revolt against British rule’. (Transfer of Power Documents, Volume IX, pp. 240-2).

The British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee thought, ‘The situation might so develop as to result in a civil war in India, with all the bloodshed which that would entail’ (Transfer of Power Documents 1942-1947, Vol. IX, P. 319). He had decided to hand over power to avoid such an eventuality. He would have much preferred if India remained united but when the Cabinet Mission failed in 1946, the only option left open was to partition the country. To get the Congress Party to agree to it, the latter was assured that it will be done in such a way that Pakistan will not be a viable country and unlikely to survive for long.

Mr. Gandhi had dispatched an emissary from his own entourage, Sudhir Ghosh, to London to liaise privately with the Labour Government. While studying at Cambridge he had established durable links with Quakers and Labour politicians, including Pethick-Lawrence and Cripps. Privately, the former considered him a ‘vexatious embarrassment’ while Wavell referred to him as ‘that little rat’ and a ‘snake in the grass with a very swollen head’. Nonetheless, he remained Mr.Gandhi’s man for making back-room deals with the Labour Party. His first mission was to arrange for the removal of Wavell and replace him with someone more acceptable to Congress.

A telephone conversation between Vallabhbhai Patel in Delhi and Sudhir Ghosh in London on 28th August was intercepted and reported to Wavell. In it Patel was heard saying ‘Cripps had promised if there was any disturbance in Calcutta, he will order Section 93 (dissolution of Muslim League Government and the imposition of Governor’s Rule in Bengal). What is he doing? Ghosh told him that Cripps was out of the country but he would take up the matter with another minister. Patel then told him to remain in the country and await further orders ‘We are taking charge on 2nd September’ (Liberty or Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division, by Patrick French, p. 254). There could not be clearer evidence that at least some members of the Labour Government were colluding with the Congress.

Earlier, Wavell had recorded that the Cabinet Mission had been ‘unable to remain really impartial’ and had been ‘living in the pocket of Congress’, further concluding the Mission ‘might have succeeded had Cripps and Pethick-Lawrence not been so completely in the Congress camp’ (Wavell: The Viceroy’s Journal, edited by Penderel Moon, pp. 287, 324). Jinnah wrote to Attlee, with a copy to Churchill that the conduct of the Cabinet Delegation had ‘impaired the honour of the British Government and shaken the confidence of Muslim India’ and ‘shattered their hopes for an honourable and peaceful settlement’ (Transfer of Power Documents, Vol. VII, p. 527).

Wavell sent transcripts of the intercepts of telephone conversations Ghosh had with Gandhi to Attlee, with a note of protest stating ‘I cannot continue to be responsible for the affairs in India if some members of your Government are keeping in touch with the Congress through an independent agent behind my back’ (Transfer of power Documents, VIII, pp. 328-9). It had become a familiar refrain. There had been frequent complaints from him and his staff about the ‘lack of realism and honesty’ on the part of the cabinet in London (Wavell: pp. 397-409).

Sudhir Ghosh did not cut much ice with Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick-Lawrence but found Attlee ‘a great deal more understanding’, who told him in early September 1946 that ‘there was a good case for a new viceroy but there was no sense in making a change unless he was in a position to find someone who was obviously better than the present occupant of the post’ (The Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi, VXXXV, p. 518). The Transfer of Power record, as well as Wavell’s own journal, is replete with pleas and exhortations on the subject while stressing the need for honesty, fair play and justice. Wavell was no politician and obviously had not adjusted to their ways. It made him an obstacle both for Congress as well as the British Government and the time had come for him to go home for their scheme to be put into effect as envisaged.

After the Japanese surrendered, Nehru had gone to Burma as a guest of Mountbatten. Following their discussions, Krishna Menon, who was an influential member and councilor for the Labour Party in Britain, conveyed it to the British Minister and Congress sympathiser, Stafford Cripps in a secret meeting that Mountbatten’s selection would be most acceptable to Congress (Freedom at Midnight, by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, foot note p.19). In mid-December 1946 Attlee sounded out Mountbatten to replace Wavell as the viceroy in India.

He took over on 24th. March 1947 while still remaining in regular contact with Krishna Menon. In one of his letters to Mountbatten after a meeting with Attlee, Menon informed him: ‘no lack of desire on the part of the P.M to be of assistance. I found there and everywhere else that the Fuhrer (Jinnah) had overplayed his hand’ (Transfer of Power Documents, Vol. XII, p.255). The Congress Party had already agreed to the creation of Pakistan composed of provinces having a majority of Muslims provided parts of Punjab and Bengal, where Muslims were in minority, were joined with India.

There is evidence to suggest that based on assurances given to them, Congress leaders accepted Pakistan only as a stopgap measure. In a letter to India’s representative in China, K. P. S Menon on 29th April 1947, Nehru wrote that he was in no doubt eventually India would have to become one country and it could well be that Partition was but a stepping stone on the path towards that goal (Nehru: The Making of India, by M. J. Akbar, London, 1989, p. 405).

To ensure this happened, India withheld Pakistan’s share of finances and other assets after independence. Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, who became Supreme Commander of both India and Pakistan after Partition reported to Whitehall on 28th September 1947: ‘I have no hesitation whatever in affirming that the present India Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the Dominion of Pakistan on a firm basis. In this, I am supported by the unanimous opinion of my senior officers, and indeed by all British officers cognizant of the situation, (Auchinleck, by John Connel, London, 1959, p. 1379).

British complicity in the nefarious scheme is clear from minutes of the meeting Mountbatten had with the Provincial Governors on 15th April 1947. In it he told them ‘—— partition of India would be a most serious potential source of war. —– A quick decision would also give Pakistan a greater chance to fail on its demerits. The great problem was to reveal the limits of Pakistan so that the Muslim League could revert to an unified India with honour’. When the Acting Governor of Bengal informed him that in the event of partition, ‘Eastern Bengal alone was not a going concern and never would be. It could not feed itself —- It would become a rural slum —- Muslims knew it as well as Hindus, so they felt that the object of the cry (by the Hindus) to partition Bengal was to torpedo Pakistan’, Mountbatten replied, ‘Anything that resulted in torpedoing Pakistan was of advantage in that it led the way back to a more common-sense solution’ (Transfer of Power Documents, Vol. X, pp. 242 -244, 250 and Shameful Flight, by Stanley Wolpert, p. 142).

It had been originally announced that the transfer of power was to take place on 30th June 1948. Citing the example of Irish independence when Britain had taken more than two years just to agree on the modalities of the transfer of power to Ireland, Jinnah asked for more time. Instead, for good measure, Mountbatten advanced the date to 15th August 1947 giving Jinnah less than two months to set up a new country! Not only that, eight tehsils in central Punjab adjoining Pakistan, including Ajnala, Gurdaspur, Batala, Jullunder, Nakodar, Ferozepur, Zira, Fazilka and parts of Shakargarh and Lahore where Muslims were in majority, were all awarded to India to ensure the latter had access to Kashmir and control of rivers flowing into Pakistan.

Over and above all this, even before she could get established, Pakistan had to accommodate and settle nine million destitute refugees from India. The fact that she survived and prospered and continues to do so against all odds can only be attributed to the resilience, fortitude, determination, unity of purpose and spirit of sacrifice of her people.

, ,

No Comments

EXPOSING TIME’S MALEVOLENT QUOTE AGAINST QUAID-E-AZAM By Commodore Tariq Majeed PN (Retd)

 

Image result for quaid-e-azam quotes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awareness Brief–AB-03-18, Thursday, 17 May 2018, 1 Ramazan 1439

EXPOSING TIME’S MALEVOLENT QUOTE AGAINST QUAID-E-AZAM

 

Commodore Tariq Majeed PN (Retd)

 

This analytical article on a critical matter was written in May 1997 and was published in weekly The Facts International, Lahore, in its issue of June 1—7, 1997. The article’s circulation was limited to The Facts’ readers. Besides, that was 21 years—nearly a generation—ago. There was a need to bring this important matter to the knowledge of the present generation of policymakers, writers and other relevant people.

  

            A malevolent statement allegedly made by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and said to have been quoted by a doctor who treated him in the last days of his fatal illness, was printed by the American weekly Time in its issue of December 23, 1996, in a story on the founder of Pakistan.

 

A Proven Concoction

            It immediately drew denunciation and protests from many Pakistanis who read the evidently untrue statement in Time or some of the local newspapers which had reproduced it. Several letters refuting the statement and demonstrating its falseness appeared in various newspapers.

            That the statement is a concoction had been proved indisputably as it will be further demonstrated in this study. The issue, however, cannot be left there. Time is a prominent worldwide publication. Why did it indulge in such a repugnant venture? Moreover, where exactly did that cunning canard spring from? Who all participated in the subversive scheme? These questions ought to be seriously looked into. The canard should be thoroughly exposed.

 

The Weapon of Propaganda

            In the game of power politics between nations, propaganda is used as the main weapon. Indeed, no other weapon or agent of aggression can match poisonous propaganda in its destructive effects against societies and states. Therefore, expansionist powers, aiming at imperialistic hegemony over weaker nations, extensively employ this weapon to demoralize and debilitate and thus subdue, their targets. Deception, fabrication and disinformation are a staple menu of propaganda fed to the people for such purposes.

 

As the hegemonic powers are clear about their strategic aims, they are able to plan the menu of the propaganda and its methods of dissemination years in advance. How this stream of fake or untrustworthy information is passed off as a credible and acceptable material is an intricate art in itself. The main method is to propagate the information through prominent media organs whose credibility is well-established. It has the added advantage that if anyone challenges the questionable information, the managers, drawing on the prominent image of their periodical or network, manage to overlook or deflect the criticism. This should be kept in mind while examining the malicious statement in Time’s story.

 

 

Letters Not Published

The exact words in the story, written by Carl Posey, were. “On his deathbed, according to his doctor, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the wealthy lawyer of Bombay, rendered his final judgment on his signal achievement: ‘Pakistan,’ he said, had been ‘the biggest blunder of my life’”. When I read it, I immediately wrote to Time by e-mail with the intention of not merely refuting the statement but challenging the whole episode.

The first step to know was what was Time’s source, as Posey had cleverly left the reference and even the doctor’s name out. I expected there would be other letters also disproving the statement, and the editors while publishing the letters would certainly reveal the sources to support their story. My letter, dated 27 December 1996, to the editor was as follows:

 

I am a reader of Time since 1960, and am aware of its brilliant reporting of facts and equally brilliant reproduction of concoctions and distortion of facts. Carl Posey’s report (Dec 23) that on his deathbed, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, according to his doctor, said that Pakistan had been the ‘biggest blunder of my life,’ falls in the latter skill. Mr Jinnah’s sister Fatima Jinnah, and two prominent doctors, Riaz Ali Shah and Colonel Elahi Bakhsh remained by his side till he breathed his last. None of the doctors ever quoted such a statement; neither is it mentioned in Col Bakhsh’s book, With the Quaid-e-Azam during his Last Days. Indeed, both of them and Fatima Jinnah, who wrote a book, My Brother, narrated that Mr Jinnah continued to express his love for and pride in Pakistan till the end.

 

Simultaneously, a letter countering Carl Posey’s tale with weighty reasoning was dispatched to Time by a friend of mine who used to be a student of Dr Elahi Bakhsh in late 1950s, and had heard from him many an anecdote about Quaid-e-Azam but never anything like what Time had quoted. Both of our letters were not published by Time. Subsequently, it was learnt that Time had refused to publish several other letters including one by a former Aide-de-camp to Quaid-e-Azam.

 

Time’s Tactics

            Not finding my letter in Time’s issue of January 20, 1997, which carried a few letters on the subject, I at once sent a reminder, and only then received a reply. By then, it was obvious from several indications that Time knew the statement to be disinformation and was using all kinds of tactics to camouflage its motives and deceive the protesters and the public.

 

Before looking at its reply, let us take a look at Time’s tactics. The piece of disinformation is placed at the very end, to serve as the closing words of the two-page story, “The Great Pleader for a Muslim State.” Reading through the story when you come to its end, the malevolent closing words hit you like a knock of a hammer, and all that you may have found favourable to Pakistan’s founder, in the story, fades away. The story’s writer triumphs, in the effect that he wanted to create on the readers.   

 

It is a usual practice with any standard periodical, including Time, that when its information is questioned or disproved, it reveals its own source or extends an apology. Time did not publish in its own pages the source of that statement. It disclosed the source only to individual protesters.

Time did not indicate how much mail it had received on this topic of the false quote. Normally, in such cases, it publishes several of the letters in a separate box and even cites brief comments from some of the unpublished letters. A recent example could be seen in the issue of January 27, 1997, in which the editors, after publishing 12 letters about a previous cover story, had given short excerpts from a number of the unpublished letters.

 

Posey’s story, as mentioned, did not reveal the name of the doctor who had leaked the so-called quote of the Quaid. On the other hand, the one-sentence statement was so phrased, and with such audacity, as if the writer, Carl Posey, had himself heard the statement from the doctor!

 

Its timing was perfectly calibrated. The story was printed to coincide with the birth anniversary of Quaid-e-Azam on December 25. As it was reproduced by several of the local newspapers, it was read by a large number of people. The malignant disinformation, even though disbelieved by almost everyone, created a sense of confusion and frustration among the people, at a time when they traditionally celebrate the merits and achievements of the founder of the country with a measure of pride.

 

With this story, Time also closed its special series titled “Newsmakers of the Half Century” under which it was written. The series had been started just two months earlier, with its issue of 21 October 1996, for write-ups on Time’s own selection of nine Asian leaders including Sukarno, Mao Zedong and Nehru. A comment on Quaid-e-Azam by Time in its special issue on Asia, ahead of the series, should be exposed. Donald Morrison, writing in a column, otherwise exclusively devoted to praising the weekly and its staff, made a mean swipe at Quaid-e-Azam. He claimed: “Our readers included nearly all the region’s top political and business leaders—the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, for example, who once granted a Time correspondent an interview in exchange for a subscription.” Were the facts to be dug out, this statement too will turn out to be false.

 

After its December 23 issue, which carried Posey’s story, came Time’s end-of-the-year double issue, meaning the next issue would not appear till after two weeks. That meant a week’s long delay in publication of letters protesting that false quote—which, thus, remained unquestioned in the pages of Time for that extra period.

The magazine, of course, also had a more concrete plan to deal with the letters of protest and refutation. Time, the champion of all kinds of conceivable and inconceivable human rights, including freedom of speech, equality and impartiality, had no intention of publishing them! Indeed, the editors adhered to their plan, without the least remorse.

 

Time’s Own Choice of Letters

            The editors cleverly selected just four letters, on the topic, which they published in the issue of January 20, 1997. Only one of these, from a lady in Islamabad, questions the false quote—just in one sentence! It reads: “For Jinnah to have said on his deathbed that Pakistan was his ‘biggest blunder’ flies in the face of all that has been recorded and written about the Quaid and is entirely out of character.” That was all, to represent the anger and protests over the false statement registered by many Pakistanis and the undeniable refutation of it presented to Time by some very authentic protesters!

 

The editors did not stop at that dishonest act. They employed an additional trick without any qualm. Immediately below that letter, they placed a letter which purports to sustain the canard, though the comment made is incoherent! It is by someone named Umer Pasha, from Lahore; and he is made to say:  “Time has really done justice to the tremendous personality of our great leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I think Jinnah knew what he was saying when he called his nation-building the biggest blunder of his life. None of the current leaders of Pakistan has the sincerity and the will to build the economy of the country.” The other two letters do not speak about the false quote and comment on some other aspects of the story.

 

Time’s Reply

            We can examine now Time’s reply to my letter. The same reply was received by a few other people, who persisted in demanding a reply to their letters. The full text of Time’s reply is as follows:

 

            Thank you for taking the time to register your reaction to our December 23 anniversary supplement about Mohammad Ali Jinnah. We were, of course, sorry to learn of your disappointment with our reporting but we do appreciate the opportunity to consider your critical perspective.

            In addressing broad-based criticism of the overall tone of our reporting, it is often difficult for us to do more than offer our assurances that we have no interest in pursuing programmatic biases in the magazine. We are certainly most sensitive to the extraordinary diversity of our audience and, naturally, we strive to apply a consistently dispassionate measure to each and every topic with which we engage.

            Having said that, we would like to speak specifically about the deathbed quote you mention. Our source was M. J. Akbar’s Nehru: The Making of India (Viking 1988). On page 433 of that biography, Akbar writes “Jinnah’s personal physician in his last days, Colonel Elahi Bakhsh, had recorded that once Jinnah, on his deathbed, blew up at Liaquat Ali Khan, who had come to see him, and described Pakistan as ‘the biggest blunder of my life’. The story was printed in Peshawar’s Frontier Post in November 1987 and quotes Jinnah as saying, “If now I get an opportunity I will go to Delhi and tell Jawaharlal Nehru to forget about the follies of the past and become friends again.” We do know that Colonel Bakhsh did not include this quote in his own memoir, With the Quaid-e-Azam during his Last Days, but that does not, in our view, mean that he may not have remembered it nonetheless and related it later to a different audience.

            In closing, we thought you might be interested to know that several letters expressing similar criticisms to yours were published in our Asian edition, where the story originally appeared. Although we were unable to include your letter as well, you can be sure that it met with an attentive audience among our editors. Again, our thanks for letting us hear from you, and best wishes.

 

Sincerely,

Winston Hunter

 

Analysis of Time’s Reply

One cannot be impressed by the “courtesies” in Time’s letter when the subject is its inaccuracies and prevarications—which is a courteous expression for lies.

            It is incorrect for the editors to say that they “have no interest in pursuing programmatic biases in the magazine.” The fact that they deliberately did not publish many letters of protest from Pakistanis disproves their statement. This itself testifies to their programmatic biases.”

            It is a lie on their part to say “that several letters expressing similar criticisms to yours were published in our Asian edition”. How could they make such a false claim against the evidence in their own magazine! There were not several but just four letters; and out of these four, only one letter expressed criticism of the quote, in just one sentence!

            The editors said they were unable to include my letter; they said the same words to others whose letters were not published. But the editors presented no reason to anyone, as to what made them ‘unable’ to publish those letters? What else could be the reason, except that the editors were afraid the readers of Time would know that the statement about Mr Jinnah was a concoction.

 

Indian Author’s Book

            From the wording of their reply, it appears that the book of the Indian author, M.J. Akbar, is Time’s main source for the quote. I found the book in Quaid-e-Azam Library, Lahore. On looking up the book, one finds that Akbar’s source for the concocted statement is none other than the Frontier Post story! Incidentally, this book on Nehru is considered of no authentic value. Even in India, it is treated with disdain, because in his adulation of his subject, Akbar became blind to Nehru’s faults losing all sense of objectivity, while the Indians from authentic literature have been learning more and more about Nehru’s moral weaknesses and political blunders. It should also be of interest to know that M.J. Akbar’s zealous devotion to the Indian National Congress surprises even the party’s own Hindu loyalists!       

 

Tracking Down the Primary Source

            Next, we come to the so-called primary source—the story in the Frontier Post. It was a bizarre situation; an unheard of the statement had found a passage into an Indian author’s book and an American weekly, and its primary source was a little-known, literally obscure newspaper!

 

            Both Time and M.J. Akbar had intentionally not mentioned the exact date of the story. I reckoned there would be some difficulty in finding the date and then the story in Frontier Post Files. It turned out I had underestimated the problem. The Frontier Post office in Lahore plainly expressed their inability to help in the matter, saying that the Lahore Edition was launched only in July 1989. A letter, followed by a reminder to the Frontier Post’s chief editor, in Peshawar, requesting his help failed to elicit any response from him.

 

            Inquiries revealed that a ‘seasoned hand’, who had spent several years at the Frontier Post and was considered a walking encyclopedia on the Peshawar daily, could be contacted in Lahore. He did prove to be ‘seasoned’. He was a diehard congressite in his political allegiance. He knew about the Frontier Post story and its author’s name, and even defended it, but said he did not know its date, and that even the year could be 1986 or 1988 and not necessarily 1987! I understood his trickery.

 

            Finding the Frontier Post Files of 1987 was another problem. It was the Dayal Singh Trust Library, Lahore, which, in this case, proved to be an asset, superior to all the other local libraries. On a day, in the month of Ramazan (1997), I spent several hours going through the Frontier Post Files of November and December 1987, but the story was not found.

 

An Intriguing Column

            However, I found two unusual features in the paper. It carried a continuous stream of subtle, and sometimes even blatant, propaganda against Pakistan and its raison d’etre ie, its reason for existence. Unfortunately, it is also a characteristic of several other dailies in our country, but the Peshawar daily topped the other papers in this respect. The second was an intriguing feature. The Frontier Post, sometime in October 1987, had initiated on the ‘City Post’ page, a special but occasional column titled “Historical Notes.” It seemed to be a technique for airing ‘new disclosures and theories’ to distort the facts about the Pakistan Movement, the Muslim League, and the leading personalities who led the movement and the party.

 

            Under that ‘special’ column, on Saturday, 12 December 1987, is a story “Quaid Wanted To Abandon Muslim League” by Al-Huma, obviously a cover name. An inscription at the story’s beginning says, “The writer of the article is a student of the history of Pakistan Movement. In 1972 he undertook a self-imposed mission of collecting information and historical evidence so as to set the historical record straight for the posterity”. Al Huma’s narrative which he says is based on an interview of Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, the Mir of Kalat, is pathetically unfit to be of any historical value. Four days later, on 16 December, the newspaper was compelled to publish a reply challenging Al-Huma and exposing his narrative to be manifestly inaccurate.

 

The mystery around the Concocted Story

            A study of that column did give a clue to finding the story. It was obvious the elusive story would be found in the “Historical Notes” on the ‘City Post’ page. But, I failed to find the story! It was eventually found by a helpful source, Hakim Naeemud Din Zuberi, the learned Director of Library, Hamdard University, Karachi, to whom I had written to help with the research.

            The story was in the paper of 25 November 1987. It was indeed on the ‘City Post’ page and in the special column, this time more grandiloquently titled as “Footnotes of History.”  It is by Mohammad Yahya Jan, and is headlined, “What Quaid’s Physician told me”.

How did I miss it? In the Frontier Post Files in the Dayal Singh Trust Library, the page was not there! It had been removed—by design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  The Story’s Author

            An inquiry into Yahya Jan’s background revealed that his father was a brother of Dr Khan Sahib and Abdul Ghaffar Khan. They were the founders of the anti-Pakistan ‘Red Shirts’ movement. They were loyal to the Indian National Congress, deadly opposed to Pakistan. Yahya Jan had served in the pre-partition Congress régime in the Frontier Province as education minister in 1945. Yahya Jan was a tottering old man touching the debilitating age of 90 in 1987, when he ‘remembered’ to disclose something which, he said, had been told to him by Col Elahi Bakhsh 35 years before, in 1952!

 

Cleverly-Written Narrative

            At the outset, Yahya Jan says, “I cannot vouch for the truth of Col Elahi Bakhsh’s account. All I can say, with God as my witness, that this is what he told me”. Then follows a long narrative of how and what Dr Elahi Bakhsh confided to Yahya Jan and Dr Khan Sahib, in a patients’ ward in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where an ailing Ghaffar Khan was under treatment. Yahya Jan claims he received the information, that he had disclosed in the story, over a number of sessions of conversation with Bakhsh. On this point, he writes: “Col Elahi Bakhsh, as the superintendent of the Mayo Hospital, used to come on his rounds of the wards between 8 and 9 in the morning. He would exchange a few words and then pass on. As he got to know us better he occasionally lingered on for longer periods. Sometimes our conversation stretched out for quite a while, and their memory endures in my mind.”

 

            The narrative contains the malicious quote and a number of other preposterous statements, allegedly made by Quaid-e-Azam to Liaquat Ali Khan when the latter, accompanied by Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, called on the Quaid at Ziarat in late July 1948. The utterances are exceedingly insulting to Quaid-e-Azam, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, Miss Fatima Jinnah, the State of Pakistan and the entire Pakistan Movement. The basis of the narrative is that Col Elahi Bakhsh was in the room throughout when Quaid-e-Azam had the exclusive meeting with Liaquat Ali Khan.

 

            According to Yahya Jan, apart from the Khan Brothers, the only person who learnt of Col Bakhsh’s account was Agha Shorish Kashmiri, a well-known journalist, to whom Yahya had passed it on. According to the narrative, Agha Shorish, apparently, had it confirmed from the doctor but then kept it to himself!  The full narrative mentions other malicious things also. Towards the narrative’s end, Yahya again swears by God, and says, “I hold myself accountable to God if I have misquoted anything Col Bakhsh said”. Swearing by God is an old ruse to make concocted statements ‘credible.’

 

Refutation of the Story

            Amongst the evidence that appeared in newspapers proving the falseness of the story, the accounts by three persons are of special significance. They are: Dr Zafar Omer, an assistant of late Col Elahi Bakhsh, Dr Ghulam Mohammad Khan, the only living doctor out of a team of four from Mayo Hospital who attended Mr Jinnah during his terminal illness in Ziarat and Quetta, and Brigadier (Retd) Noor A. Hussain, Quaid’s ADC in the last four months of his life in Karachi, Quetta and Ziarat. Excerpts from their letters which appeared in Dawn on 30 January, 26 January and 4 March 1997, respectively are reproduced below.

 

Zafar Omer, Lahore. “I was privy to most of the observations of late Col Elahi Bakhsh (about Quaid-e-Azam), because I was his assistant, and quite close to him. I never heard him mention any such remark. In fact, according to Col Elahi Bakhsh, the Quaid till the last seemed most proud of his achievement and had great hopes regarding the country”.

 

Dr Ghulam Mohammad Khan, Lahore. “I have no wish to dwell upon all the malicious and vituperative statements of the writer (of Time’s story). However, the last paragraph of his story should not go without comment. Besides other things, it states that on his deathbed Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah told his doctor that Pakistan had been ‘the biggest blunder of my life’. I happen to be the only living doctor out of a team of four from Mayo Hospital, Lahore, who attended Mr Jinnah during his terminal illness in Ziarat and Quetta. He was never left unattended—day or night—as we had adjacent bedrooms. It is absolutely unimaginable and unbelievable that a statement of such import and implication was ever made by Mr Jinnah and none of the doctors present at hand had known it for nearly 48 years till Carl Posey brought it to our notice.

            “Furthermore, late Col Elahi Bakhsh makes no mention of any such statement in his book “With the Quaid-e-Azam during his Last Days”. The statement attributed to the founder of Pakistan by Carl Posey is a figment of his own imagination. It is clear that this statement has been deliberately concocted in order to malign a great leader and the country he brought into existence, and it is obviously sponsored by the enemies of Pakistan.”

 

Brigadier (Retd) Noor Hussain, Rawalpindi. “I was the Quaid’s ADC in the last four months of his life in Karachi, Quetta and Ziarat. I cannot recollect the Quaid ever feeling or making such remarks to his doctor or anyone else, even on his deathbed, where I was present throughout.

            “I was ADC on duty when Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan arrived in Ziarat late July 1948, to see Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. After Quaid’s consent, I ushered him into the bedroom on the top floor. They exchanged greetings. Miss Jinnah came out as was the protocol for such meetings between the two. Doctor Elahi Bakhsh and Riaz Ali Shah chest specialist were not present in Quaid’s bedroom but were waiting in the Lounge on the ground Floor with us. After about 40 minutes, the PM came downstairs, met the doctors, had lunch with Miss Jinnah and ADCs and drove down to Quetta for the flight back to Karachi by PAF’s DC-3 aircraft.”

 

Miss Fatima Jinnah’s Book

            Brigadier Hussain’s eye-witness account of Liaquat Ali Khan’s call on the Quaid at Ziarat is fully corroborated by Miss Fatima Jinnah’s description of that visit in her book “My Brother”, (Karachi, Quaid-e-Azam Academy, 1987). In fact, she related that when the meeting was over, she went into the Quaid’s room and wanted to stay with him as he seemed exhausted but he insisted: “Go and eat with them, they are our guests”.

 

            From her book also, it is evident that when Mr Liaquat Ali met the Quaid, there was no one else in the room, not even she or Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, what to speak of Dr Elahi Bakhsh, who was rather a stranger to Quaid-e-Azam till then. It should be remembered that Col Elahi Bakhsh, as recorded in his book, had met Quaid-e-Azam for the first time on 24 July, and it was just around four days later that Liaquat Ali Khan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali arrived on their visit. Indeed, Dr Bakhsh, in his own book makes no claim of having been present at that meeting; nor is there any mention, or even a hint, of that false statement in the book.

 

The Source of Concoction

            Then, where did that statement and all the other vicious utterances originate from? Who concocted the episode? To analyze this concoction one must comprehend the full dimension of the nature and aims of the psychological warfare being conducted against our country. Once that has been comprehended, then you know that this concoction is the handiwork of the schemers conducting that warfare. Needless to say, the schemers intimately know their subjects, targets, and the local conditions, and have a vast network to gain penetration and influence into the required circles. Indeed, this whole scheme, which in their terminology is called a “sting operation,” has their stamp on it. Like all the other sting operations, this one was also very meticulously planned and had been conceived a long time before it was to materialize.

c

 

            Those people, who think that there would be no harm in befriending Israel, must realize that it will not change Israeli aims. God forbid, if the rulers of Pakistan ever committed the blunder of befriending the Zionist state, they would be offering the Israelis the ideal circumstances and full freedom to realize their aims against Pakistan.  That will also invite divine punishment to Pakistan, for transgressing a divine commandment: “O you who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah.”  The “people” mentioned in this Quranic Verse (Surah 60:13) are the Zionist Jews who deny God and His Prophets. “They are the Party of Satan;” (Surah 58:19). They are the creators and rulers of the Zionist state of Israel.  

 

The Local Fifth Column

            Due to various reasons, a Fifth Column exists in Pakistan. Fifth Column, by definition, is “An organized body sympathizing with and working for the enemy within a country.” These people living in Pakistan have amassed wealth and they enjoy many privileges, but they readily act as agents of the Zionist Jews to harm Pakistan. Yahya Jan belonged to this band. The master schemers guided him to be the pivot in this nasty venture.

 

Final Orchestration

            The scheme of the concocted story was made by Zionist schemers. They prepared its full script, had the story printed in the Frontier Post, passed the information to M.J. Akbar and Carl Posey, none of whom, otherwise, would have known about it. The concocted story would find a permanent place in the pages of Akbar’s book and the weekly Time, long after people had forgotten the Frontier Post and Yahya Jan. For Yahya Jan, nearing the end of his life, it was the last desperate stroke of ‘revenge’ against Pakistan whose establishment he and his clan had failed to prevent.            

By November 1987, M.J. Akbar’s book was ready to go into print (it was published in 1988) and a sick, awfully aged, Yahya Jan was close to his deathbed (he died in 1989). Shorish Kashmiri had died in 1975.  A phoney newspaper had been launched since 1985 and a column “Historical Notes” had been initiated in it since October 1987. So, the plan was set for Time (a mouthpiece of Zionism) to bring out a special series in October–December 1996, on Asian ‘Newsmakers of the Half Century’; it should have a write-up on Mohammad Ali Jinnah carrying the concocted quote, and ending the series!  So, the sting operation was launched and successfully completed.  

Action for the Government

            This whole sordid affair has another deplorable aspect— an absence of any action on the part of the government or scholars in Pakistan to challenge and demolish the lies directed against Quaid-e-Azam and the creation of Pakistan. Their insensitivity and neglect were compounded. They let the Frontier Post story go unnoticed, failed to spot the inclusion of the lies in M.J. Akbar’s book, and maintained a conspiracy of silence when Time advertised the malevolent lies around the world.

           

The least the government should do now is that either the Information Ministry or the Quaid-e-Azam Academy should declare the false quote to be a concoction, and formally ask the weekly Time and the publishers of M.J. Akbar’s book to annul it from the pages of their publications. The concerned authorities should also place this article at appropriate websites on the Internet, as, besides unmasking the falseness of Time’s story, it exposes this magazine’s dishonesty in knowingly publishing a false story.   

 

The writer is an analyst of International Zionism’s schemes, particularly the schemes against Pakistan and the other Muslim Countries.

 

 

Tariq Majeed

Lahore, Pakistan

 

No Comments

Quaid’s Pakistan & Notes on Presidential Form of Govt.(more suited to Pakistan)  by Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

 

 

 

LETTER TO EDITOR

December 27th, 2017

Quaid’s Pakistan

While addressing a conference on “Quaid’s Pakistan” held at the National Arts Council Karachi the other day, the Chairman Senate Mr. Raza Rabbani asserted that the Quaid was for the Parliamentary form of Government and the few Presidential forms of Government that we have had brought nothing but disaster to Pakistan (words to that effect).  Leaving aside the discussion whether the Presidential Government. brought progress  or disaster to the country, let me draw the attention of your readers to the two manuscripts of the Quaid e Azam which are held in the National Archives, Islamabad and in which the Quaid on July 10th,  1947, probably for addressing some meeting had made these notes in his own hand which  make it clear that he preferred the Presidential Form of Govt. for Pakistan.  The notes read as follow:

            Future Constitution of Pakistan         

            Dangers of Parliamentary Form of Govt.

(1)             Parliamentary Form of Govt.

I__  It has worked satisfactorily in England no where else.

(2)             Presidential Form of Govt.

(more suited to Pakistan) 

For original please see page 3 of the Quaid’s notes appended below:

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

30, Westridge-1

Rawalpindi, Pakistan

E.mailjafri@rifiela.com

, , ,

No Comments

Quaid-i-Azam’s Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Quaid-i-Azam’s  Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

August 11, 1947


Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen!

I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honor you have conferred upon me – the greatest honour that is possible to confer – by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering – I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse – is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that black marketers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face a shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These black marketers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because of the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said about it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of every one of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgment, there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is a verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now, what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this, we would have been free people long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honor you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favoritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads:

I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency’s capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:On the occasion of of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.


Source: Dawn, Independence Day Supplement, August 14, 1999.
Transcribed from printed copy by Shehzaad Nakhoda
 

, ,

No Comments

Independence by Inam Khawaja

Independence

 

by

 

Inam Khawaja

 

Physically the British rule ended on 14th August 1947 but are we truly independent? On 2nd February 1835 Lord Macualay in his address in the British Parliament said:-

 

I have seen in this country, such moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”

 

In the past sixty years we have done hardly anything to improve and reorient the existing education system. Instead we have allowed the mushroom growth of schools leading to British ‘O’ Level and ‘A’ Level producing youngsters totally imbibed with British values and mores. They hardly have any pride or self esteem, they think that only imported things are good and have no pride in our own things. We have gone ahead in implementing Macaulay’s agenda a step further than what the British did.

 

It is time that we take stock of ourselves and see where our present policies are leading us, Pakistan is an Islamic State and we claim to be Muslims, what we need to ask ourselves; is our education policy designed to produce good Muslims imbibed with Islamic values? Has anyone given any thought to this matter? Is the educational policy specifically designed to inculcate at least the universally accepted moral values? Unfortunately the answer to all the three questions is in the negative.

 

Lest we continue to forget; the Quaid in his address to the mammoth rally in Lahore on 30th October 1947 had instructed us that:-

 

“If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quran, the final victory I once again say will be ours. —— All I require of you now is that everyone of us to whom this message reaches must vow to himself and be prepared to sacrifice his all, if necessary, in building up Pakistan as a bulwark of Islam and as one of the greatest nations whose ideal is peace within and peace without.”

 

In the past sixty years we have continued to formulate and implement policies diametrically opposed to the Quaid’s vision. None of our policies are inspired by the injunctions of the Quran nor do the courses in our Civil Services and Armed Forces Academies emphasize that the officers must be guided by the injunctions of the Quran in their dealing with the public.

 

Regarding the bureaucracy the Quaid on 25th March 1948 in his address to the Officers at Chittagong had said:-

 

“Those days have gone when the country was ruled by the bureaucracy. It is people’s Government responsible to the people more or less on democratic lines and parliamentary practices. —— You have to do your duty as servants; you are not concerned with this Political or that political Party; that is not your business. —— The second point is that your conduct and dealings with the people in the various Departments in which you may be: wipe off that past reputation; you are not rulers. You do not belong to the ruling class; you belong to the servants. Make people feel that you are their servants and friends, maintain the highest standard of honour, integrity, justice and fair-play.”

 

The Quaid in his informal talk to the Civil Officers at Government House Peshawar on 14th April 1948 had said:-

 

“The first thing I want to tell you is this, that you should not be influenced by any political pressure, by any political party or individual politician. —– Governments are formed, Governments are defeated, Prime Ministers come and go, Ministers come and go, but you stay on, and, therefore there is great responsibility placed on your shoulders. You should have no hand in supporting this political or that political party, this political leader or that political; leader this is not your business.”

 

We celebrate the Quaid’s birthday but totally ignore his vision of what he wanted Pakistan to be. Our bureaucracy continues to behave arrogantly as rulers and that freezing atmosphere still exists. These speeches of the Quaid (of 25th March and 14 April 1948) are totally ignored by the bureaucracy because they are not the part of their training course even the media has ignored them. In fact the full text of both these speeches should be published on the date they were delivered by the Quaid and the electronic media should play their recordings.

 

The Quaid visualized Pakistan as a state having equality of man and social justice this vision is expressed in his last speech which was delivered on 1st July 1948 at the opening ceremony of the State Bank of Pakistan:-

 

“The opening of the State Bank of Pakistan symbolizes the sovereignty of our State — I will watch with keenness the work of your Research Organization in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideals of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity —– The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.

 

 

May the State Bank of Pakistan prosper and fulfill the high ideals which have been set as its goal.”

 

The State Bank did hardly anything in fulfilling the goal set for it by the Quaid. I doubt if the Banking Institute of Pakistan includes the above speech as a part of its curriculum. It was only when Islamic Banking was introduced in some Muslim countries that we woke up and started introducing it a few years ago.

 

 

The Quaid’s opening remarks are very significant because he equates the opening of the State Bank with national sovereignty that is independence. In essence it means that the lack of economic independence compromises national sovereignty. Within a few years after the assassination of the first Prime Minister the civil bureaucracy came into power and it did not take long in compromising national sovereignty by accepting foreign economic and military aid. But when the military assumed power they went a step further and gave bases over which Pakistan had no control.

 

The time has now come to reassert our sovereignty by first regaining economic independence and doing away with all foreign aid. This is a matter of political will because foreign aid is certainly not an economic necessity. This is very eloquently expressed with convincing facts and figures by Dr. Ishrat Hussain in his article “Is US Assistance Really so Critical for Pakistan” published in both Dawn and the Business Recorder in April 2007.

 

“The result of this analysis shown in Table II indicates that even under the worst case scenario of zero aid flows and no reimbursements for logistics services rendered to the US troops the diminution in foreign exchange receipts or budgetary resources would be insignificant – varying between 4.5% of total foreign exchange receipts to 7.2% of total budgetary expenditures. The other two indicators i. e. the proportion of total value of imports and current account receipts financed by US assistance account for 6.4% and 5.8% respectively — not worrisome amounts. —– the main argument of this analysis is that the pundits in the US who believe that they can use the leverage of US official aid to paralyze Pakistan’s economy are sadly mistaken as they have an exaggerated sense of the importance of these official flows. Any attempt to impose conditions that impinge upon the sovereignty of Pakistan or conflict with our own national interests can be resisted without creating a serious dislocation to our macro economic stability or growth prospects. This analysis explodes the popularly held myth that Pakistan is so dependent on foreign assistance for its economic survival that pulling the plug would force it to yield under this pressure.”

 

The US economic assistance for 2008 and 2009 is US$ 400 million per year plus military assistance of US$ 300 million per year this the country can easily do without with only the elimination of extravagant expenditure.

 

The government must take note of the fact that the people of all shades of opinion today are united in regaining their independence and sovereignty which was achieved by democratic means in 1947. The lawyers, the civil society, the NGOs, the opposition political parties and now even the retired military personnel are all rightly demanding; an independent judiciary, independent Election Commission, freedom of information and full fundamental rights with justice and equity in short a truly free and independent Pakistan..

 

Simultaneously Published on May 24, 2014 in Business Recorder, Pakistan

 

 

 

,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar