There is a new discussion going on in Pakistan. Actually, it is an old discussion which has been resurrected by the physical and spritual progeny of Sr. Chutto Ram’s Zamindara Party (renamed the Unionist Party). Backed by the cultural onslaught from Delhi, the Old Unionists have come out of the woodwork to challenge the Pakistan Ideology as enshrined in the immutable Lahore Declaration, the holy “Qarardad e Maqasid”, and the glorious Pakistani Constitution. These 5th Column gasbags are supported by the likes of Aakar Patel who routinely pulls out arcane arguments, and inane points to undermine the Pakistan ideology and destroy the its leadership. The “discussion” is the same as it always was

Our regular readers must have noticed us narrating archives. We reproduce  historical documentation on the history of Pakistan. All of August, our sites will publish Pakistani history.

Sir Chottu Ram’s Zamindara Party became the anti-Muslim Leage Uniionist Party. A Rebuttal to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Anti-Pakistan bigoted screed “A bloody March in 1947″

This is with ref. to the ad hominem anti-Pakistan bigoted screed by Mr. Ahmed titled “A bloody March in 1947 “

Our readers have clearly recognized the fact that his precocious disputant has a stronger case and that Mr. Ahmed, a devoted unapologetic apologist for Sir Chottu Ram’s Unionist/Zamindara Party is using condescending smoke and mirrors to hide his real anti-Pakistan agenda.

Pakistanis are very cognizant of the simple verity that Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah were right: Sir Chottu Ram’s predominantly Hindu/Sikh Unionists were evil and the Islamic Muslim League was good. 

It is now obvious that Mr. Ahmed did not quite have all the facts when writing his half-baked harebrained tripe. Under the guise of research, Mr. Ahmed using patronizing “gambler’s fallacies” attempted to obfuscate the real issues and bluff his way through, hoping that he was dealing with obsequious and sycophantic grass and that we would not recognize black (veil) from white (good). 

Revisionist story tellers Like Mr. Ahmed are diligently engaged in “genetic fallacies” trying to resurrect the anti-Pakistan centrifugal forces which were discarded by the Muslim Punjabi “sherjawans” 60 years ago. These story tellers post hoc ergo propter hoc are trying to create a case against Islam and its “qila” Pakistan. This “Akhand Bharat” gratuitous gobbledygook was rejected 6 decades ago and will be challenged every step of the way by patriotic prodigious intellectuals of Pakistan.

Mr. Ahmed’s claptrap against the Pakistan ideology is a reprehensible attempt to destroy the intellectual basis of our fatherland. Recognizing the faulty processes of reasoning in his balderdash, he is now using inane arguments with spit-shine to promote his asinine jabber struggling to make is it sound respectable. This “fitna” to obviate the creation of Pakistan and to end the partition of the Punjab (and the Subcontinent) is more dangerous than those who blow up innocent civilians.

The attempt of this perfidious “fitna” to intellectually destroy the Pakistan ideology cannot be underestimated but “inshallah” this too will be defeated again. I have provided exact quotes from stalwart on the history of Punjab. Mr. Ahmad has provided inexact opinions.

Mr. Ahmed first claimed that the Zamindara League did not oppress the Muslim serfs. He then disputed the fact that the Zamindara League and the Unionist Party opposed the Muslim League and Pakistan. Amazingly Mr. Ahmed disputed the claim that the Indian National Congress was opposed to the Two nation Theory or that the INC and their cohorts, Sir Chottu Ram and his Unionist Party were opposed to the creation of Pakistan.

If the INC wanted “Akhand Bharat, and the Unionist opposed Pakistan, then perhaps Mr. Ahmed can explain how the Unionists were simply not a front of the INC. Finally Mr. Ahmed seemed to refute the fact that Sir Sikandar Hyatt played the kingmaker in Arain affairs.

On all these counts, Mr. Ahmad was wrong, and he has not presented a single quote from a single book on these matters. Sir Chottu Ram was defeated in the Punajb. Neither tribe nor clan was able to withstand the genius of Liaqat Ali Khan in destroying the power of the Ram/Sikandar feudals. The Unionist Party became irrelevant because in 1946 the brave sons and daughters of the Punjab voted for the Muslim League, Quaid-e-Azam and Shahaeed-e-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan.

Mr. Ahmed tried to use the ”fallacy of division“ but recognizing the  “fallacy of his composition” he tried to bulldoze his drivel and tried to intimidate us with the ”fallacy of arguing from authority.” 

My thesis was as follows and all of it is backed by actual quotes and references, even with page numbers: a) The Zamindara League, and it’s successor the Unionist Party was simply a scheme to safeguard the interests of the Feudal Lords of the Punjab who were usually Hindu and Sikh at the expense of the Muslim serfs of the Punjab.

David Gilmartin says “to control the cities the British focused initially on the same types of structures they used to establish control in the rural areas.”  b) It is beyond reproach that Sir Chottu Ram and Sir Skindar Hyatt opposed The Muslim League and the creation of Pakistan.

David Gilmartin on Page 125 (Empire and Islam) says “Some local officials saw little difference between the Zamindara League and the Congress“.  c).

No sane Pakistani or Muslim supported the Unionist Party that was aligned with the Indian National Congress as well as the Akali Dal Party. Fortunately the forces of history made the Unionist irrelevant to the Punjab and these traitors were wiped away by the Muslim League led by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Shaheed-e-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan. Mr. Ahmad has failed to respond to the above charges and has failed to provide any response to the points listed below.

His excuse is to hurl personal insults at me. This time, I did not play docile “Eenth ka jawab putthar seh”. It is amazing that the none of the solid arguments presented were rebutted by Mr. Ahmed.

Obscure facts about the ethnicity of Sir Shahnaz were brought up which has no bearing on the main thesis of the credentials of the Unionist Party and its opposition to the Pakistan movement and its support of Akhand Bharat. I never said Sir Sikandar was an Arain. Dr. Martin said that he represented the Arain. Here is proof of what I had written. 0)

I quote Dr. Gilmartin (Page 94 of “Empire and Islam”–Punjab and the making of Pakistan”) “The Arain anjuman wired to the new Unionist Premier Sir Skindar Hyatt Khan: ‘Arayn Anjumun fully supports Mian Abdul Aziz barrister for Ministership. Arain population nearly 13 1/2 lakhs 91350,000) third in PUnjab, but claim ignored in last reforms. Arian community feels strongly now and requests you to appoint Arain Minister.’ (Quoted in Muhammad Yusuf, Ambala City, to Mian Abdul Azaz, 26 February 1937 (Abdul Azaz collection). But Sir Sikandar was wary. Though recognizing the importance of Arian support he was also concerned to the Party and his readiness to stand by the discipline of the Party. In constructing government, Sikandar thus bypassed Mian Abdul Aziz as an Arain representative and appointed Begum Shah Nawaz, a daughter of Sir Muhammad Shafi of the Baghbanpura Mians, as a parliamentary secretary.Begum Shah Nawaz was elected from an urban constituency (Lahore City Muslim women), but her personal service to the Unionist Party, and the rural connections of the Mian family, made her far more acceptable to Unionist leaders.” 

1) I was totally appalled when Mr. Ahmed first defended the rascal Sir Chotoo Ram of the Zamindara party with the statement 9praphrased as “he did not exploit Muslim serfs.” Mr. Ahmed then  calls Sir Ram a “minor” player in Punjab. I quote Dr. Ian Talbot (which Mr. Ahmad had suggested) on Page 103 of the Political Inheritance of Pakistan in which Dr. Talbot says the following about Sir Ram.

” Chhotu Ram founded the Unionist Party along with Mian Fazl-ur-Husain , a Lahore educated lawyer who had risen to prominence through involvement in the activities of he Njuman-i-Himayat-i-Islam and the Punjab University.”

“Malcolm Darling testified to the Royal Agriculture commission in 1927, the act had conferred “a very valuable privilege upon the strong, for with the great increase in rural prosperity many agriculturalists are now in a position to buy land and as purchasers are placed in a privileged position by the Act.” 

2) To prove that fact that the Unionist were the same as the INC. David Gilmartin on Page 125 says “Some local officials saw little difference between the Zamindara League and the Congress”.  

3) The anti-Pakistan Unionists aligned with the British were the epitome of evil. David Gilmartin says “To control the cities the British focused initially on the same types of structures they used to establish control in the rural areas.”

“After the elections, Malik Khizar Hyat and the remaining rump of the Unionist Party formed a coalition with the Akali party and the Congress ..to keep the Muslim League out of power. Pakistan was formed in spite or despite the wrangling of the Zamindara and the Unionist Parties.  

4) This proves that Sir Ram was defending the feudal Hindus and Sikhs, while Shaheed-e-Millat was fighting for the rights of the Muslim serfs.. The Land Alienation Act,” P.J. Fagan wrote “was  intended to be used for the purpose of defining or constituting privileged classes‘ (Muslim Outlook, Lahore 30 July 1924).  

5) Malcolm Darling testified to the Royal Agriculture commission in 1927, the act had conferred “a very valuable privilege upon the strong, for with the great increase in rural prosperity many agriculturalists are now in a position to buy land and as purchasers are placed in a privileged position by the Act. 

6) In her biography of Sir Chottoo Ram, Prem Chaudhy argues…that Sir Chottoo Ram preferred the interests of substantial landowners to tenants, untouchables, or petty cultivators (Prem Chaudhry, Punjab Politics: the Role of Sir Chotu Ram-new [Delhi: vikas, 1984, 216-25. 

7) David Gilmartin on Page 189 of his book “Empire and Islam” says “the Unionist Party, Jinnah and his supporters declared, was a creation of the British“.He and his clan were the recipients of British largesse and got their knighthoods for supporting the British Raj in suppressing the war of independence of 1857 and successive serf revolts in the Punjab. Their other accomplishments were to provide cannon fodder of Muslim bodies to the Empire.

Dr Ian Talbot says “The Tiwanas rasied a 400 strong cavalry troop to aid the British” (Dr. Ian Talbot Page 103, # 3  The Politics of Inheritance of Pakistan) 8) Even Alama Iqbal knew that dealing with the Unionists was dangerous to the Muslim League. To leaders like Iqbal” Sikindar’s action after his return from Lucknow only confirmed their worst fears about Unionist plans to turn the League into Unionist ends”. 

9) The defection of Noon and Tiwanas weakened the Unionists and their Gandhi backers. The elections of 1946 were a watershed in Punjabi politics-the election triumph of the Muslim League proved critical in 1946 because it made the ultimate establishment of Pakistan inevitable. 

10) “After the elections, Malik Khizar Hyat and the remaining rump of the Unionist Party formed a coalition with the Akali party and the Congress ..to keep the Muslim League out of power.” Pakistan was formed in spite or despite the wrangling of the Zamindara and the Unionist Parties.