LIAQAT ALI an ALIGARIAN: By Abdul Jamil Khan
Let’s refocus on Pakistan’s leaders specially on the products of Aligarh Movement(AM) of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (SSK). Pakistanis assume that Sir Syed planted the seeds for Pakistan and they are correct though [initially-- like all Muslim Leagers] Sir Syed was for Hindu, Muslim friendship and a united free Hindustan. Sir Syed Aligarh coll was open to all and 7 of the 33 trustees were Hindus–this I write to contrast with ” Hindu college” that was established in 1816 60 yrs earlier, at Calcutta which was “EXCLUSIVE for HINDUS ONLY”. Thousands of Hindu Bengali from here wanted to ” administer/rule ” India under cover of British Aryan brothers. Mr. Nehru too had noted this development.
Sir Syed took a stand against it and British accepted. Bengali Hindus went crazy with terrorism but govt did not relent but gave them a party to ventilate. The Indian National Congress was born.
Sir Syed created the fundamental awareness for modern English education among Muslim so that they could become the ”co-administrater/rulers” of future Hindustan. He formalised a role model–that is still alive.
Mr Liaqat Ali came into the Sir Syed/ Aligarh Univ/culture as a student and graduated (1914) with a politically active group comprised of Nawab of Bhopal (famous Muslim leaguer), Rashid Ahmed Siddiqui, famous Urdu writer and M. A. Ghani (my wife’s father), univ hockey captain and later DIG police-Bhopal. Readers must note that modern Muslim education antedates Aligarh (by 1826) in Bombay and Calcutta where Muslims had opened colleges in reaction to HINDU College BUT the Aligarh Movement initiated the political movement ending in Pakistan.
Much before Aligarh Movement or even Hindu College, readers may have read about ”Aryan brotherhood of Hindus and British”. By 1790s they had formulated dreams for an ”Aryan/Hindu India” that drove Hindu revivalism, that later on had openly threatened Muslims with ”Convert/Kill/Expell campaign” [Shuddhi and Sangatham Movements] ala Spanish Inquisition–all referenced in my book. It is Sir Syed/Aligarh that had stood out against it. Powerful Hindu nationalism at this stage had even suggested “Partition of ‘India’ ” [various article on Hindu proponents of Two Nation Theory have been published on this site]. http://rupeenews.com/2012/01/lajpat-rai-shuddhi-movement-reconverted-1-5-3-million-muslims/
http://rupeenews.com/2009/10/the-shuddhi-sanghathan-movements-of-lala-lajpat-rai/
http://rupeenews.com/2012/07/two-centuries-of-bias-and-bigtory-against-pakistanis-during-colonialism/
Continent of Dinia and dependencies Chaudhry Rehmat Ali . This map shows the Muslim majority aras of South Asia. This was the vision for Pakistan and Bangistan. Quaid e Azam struggled and the Muslims struggles for this solution. Chaudhry Rehmat Ali described the Continent of “Dinia” and dependencies. Ch. Rehmat Ali’s map depicted Muslim rule in South Asia after the British left. The Muslim homelands would be carved out of “Dinia”. This was the struggle for independence. Rehmat Ali and the Muslims wanted the region returned to Muslim rule as it was before the British arrived
They [Sawarkar, Lajpat Rai etc] had to have an exclusive Hindu nation. Pakistan may be seen as a [inevitable] by some –and me as well. Muslims leaders were frustrated right from Sir Syed on wards. In this background leaders likes of IQBAL, JINNAH, and Liaqat ali had their turn. Liaqat Ali, himself from the north (born in Punjab), married to a Hindu lady (Rana niece of famous Congress leader G B Pant, a home minister later) had the same idea as of Jinnah of united India with safeguards for Muslims. BUT as described earlier, HINDUS wanted a Hindu nation, their heart’s desire–even though they posed as ”secular”. For them freedom was a necessity from both MUSLIMS and British.
Interestingly, not well known, is the boundaries of Pakistan as proposed by a HINDU leader Lala Lajpat Rai–lion of Punjab. In this he even preempted Choudhary Rehmat Ali [Rehmat Ali did not propose a divided Bengal or Punjab]. In 1924, he proposed, a bisected Bengal and Punjab as a Muslim homeland. The following year he became the president of the Hindu mahasabha (1925). The idea of Pakistan’s boundaries was initiated by Mr Rai according to Stephen Hay Assoc. Professor at Univ of California, Santa Barbara USA. (Modern India and Pakistan-p 161).
http://rupeenews.com/2010/06/g-d-savarkars-preface-to-savitri-devis-1939-‘warning-to-the-hindus’/
Thus while giving credits to people for birth of Pakistan–we need to remember that greatest credit goes to ” Hindu nationalists” and then to the Aligarh movements–that nursed leaders like Liaqat ali Khan who had really steered Pakistan movement and country of Pakistan. Thank you Rupee News for a refocus on his life specially his endeavor in Pak-US alliance.
Dear Sir, Your analysis needs more corrections.. I am a Pakistani and I read this a while back.. see below.. and this seems to be the correct approach.
There seems to be so little understanding of who we are in this empty talk of muslim. anti Hindu sikh Ahmediya bashing//Risa
Unveiling the Shroud of Partition in the Punjab
Reviewed by: Kusum Gopal
Since 9/11 the wars in Afghanistan, engagements with ‘terrorism’, the state
of affairs between India and Pakistan occupy global dialogues à niveau
élevé de politique, as they do, nationally. Unfortunately, there remain
formidable misunderstandings as flaky interpretations continue to prevail.
Thus, scholarship on this sensitive subject is to be welcomed. In this
Utilitarian, Whig account of the Partition of the Punjab, Lucy Chester
argues that the Radcliffe Boundary Commission represented the interface
between the ‘often veiled exertion of British colonial power’, and its
exercise of Power-to-control strategies vis a vis the Nationalists, meaning
the south Asian elites, which led to the setting up of the Commission. She
further argues that it was not the location of the boundary, “rushed and
inexpert as it was”, which she nevertheless believes minimised the
violence, but the “flawed process of partition” that caused the massacres.
She describes the process of the appointing the Chairman, Cyril Radcliffe
who had little knowledge of the subcontinent, was deemed impartial, and
whose legal reputation had received the nod from Jinnah and, Nehru’s
consent, as a conscientious arbitrator, loyal to the Crown. He carefully
burnt several notes and documents, thus primary sources were hard to come
by in understanding exactly how 2,500 miles of boundary came to be drawn in
less than six weeks. As she acknowledges, such critical omissions make it
impossible to know what transpired within that commission’s deliberations,
making the archival research piecemeal at best. Thus, it would make
essential under such circumstances to meet survivors of the Partition on
both sides from different sections of society. Nor has she consulted the
wealth of material in the Oral History projects undertaken by the Indian
Council of Historical Research, the IGNOU and the many well–known accounts
of contemporary nationalist leaders, for examples by Ram Manohar Lohia,
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and others, or, even to the popular Sufi poetry and
music of the times, integral to Punjabi culture. In addition, the rambling
analysis feeds on the bucolic unsophistication of colonial readings that
perennial conflict between ‘Hindus and Muslims’ had existed for many
centuries, and Partition brought it to the international scene (p.7). What
she fails to analyse are the separatist measures at the heart of colonial
polity, they were by no means veiled. From the start, the classification of
people was undertaken contrary to indigenous practices. Also, forcing
people to work on the land destroyed cottage industries, damaging artisanal
skills and traditional livelihoods. Such interference also distorted
understandings of customary laws, rituals and religious beliefs: their
heimat, how they related to each other and the natural world. One important
example: H.H Risley developed an official typology of racial types
formulating grades in caste defined by the proportion of ‘Aryan’ blood and
the nasal index along a gradient from the highest castes to the lowest. In
1910 he influentially asserted that his knowledge of facts,
rules-as-representation, “…of the religions and habits of the peoples of
India equipped a civil servant with a passport to popular regard.” He
absurdly determined, “the social position of a caste varies inversely as
its nasal index”, measuring the definition of a community as either a tribe
or a Hindu caste or a Muslim. The nasal index, a method of classifying
ethnicity was based on the ratio of the breadth of a nose to its height;
race remained one of the principal determinants of attitudes, endowments,
capabilities and inherent tendencies among subject peoples. It was used in
the recruitment different parts of the Empire. One scholar notes that
Risley’s experience of administrative matters, including policing, proved
to be useful to Curzon during the anti-government agitation that led to the
first Partition of Bengal. It also trampled upon the effervescent Bengali
Islamic syncretic folklore traditions, perceptively described by Asim Roy.
Beginning with the Minto Morley Reforms of 1909 a series of Acts were
introduced as have been documented meticulously by other Whig scholars such
as J Chatterji’s studies on Bengal focusing on the elites, in this case
grasping Hindu ‘bhadraloks’ refusing to share their power.
What exactly does Chester mean by Hindu, Muslim or Sikh identities? The
perceived antipathies through collective representation need qualification.
As, another Partition historian, Gyan Pandey has pointed out that these
categories are “well worn, essentially tautological formulae” that
determined the religious character of a mass of people by imposing a
monolithic unity of faith on each of them. One needs to add also that these
views were not conditioned by notions of religions as discrete groups,
reflecting not just a failure to understand syncretism, but also
underplaying the turbulence and contradictions in rural society. Thus many
conflicts and tensions within society were frequently attributed to
religious differences, but these assertions were not demonstrable by any
reference to historical data. Personal identities are intimately linked
with political processes and social identities are not given once and for
all, but are constantly negotiated. In the Punjab as elsewhere in the
subcontinent, syncretic beliefs have always been integral to personhood and
identity. For over a thousand years, the prolixity of Indo-Islamic
aetiologies was woven into the fabric of everyday life there was fusion and
co-existence. As a matter of fact Persian was spoken by the upper-classes,
while Urdu was the awaam ki zaban as also Punjabi, the language of the
common person in Mughal and post-Mughal India. An important Sufi tradition
was the introduction of the common kitchen integral to Punjabi sociality.
Indeed, the philosophy of Sikh Gurus nurtured the traditions of langar
(common kitchen) and pangat (queue). The Granth Sahib contains teachings
from the Upanishads, from Islam, even Christianity with words in Persian,
Arabic Punjabi and Sanskrit. In the subcontinent, various sects and
communities have simply co-existed within a pantheistic belief system: the
absorption of a deity or belief from another religion does not affect its
pluralistic character; it is assimilative, encouraging co-existence. Anyone
can gain salvation, a good Muslim, Jew or Christian, as long as he or she
follows their moral duty as prescribed by their religious texts just as one
who is born as a ‘Hindu’ can. As for Sikh and Hindu there was no divide: in
every non Sikh household it was customary for the oldest son to become a
Sikh or marry a Sikh girl. There is a need to understand the extent to
which mythology and topography have overlapped in shaping the human
landscape that spans millennia. This is so vast and of such complex
dimensions that it has been expressed exclusively through plurality and
syncretism whether they are personal, local, regional or national.
Punjabi Culture
Ancient cultures of the subcontinent are renowned for their millennial
syncretic and immanent traditions. In this study, there is no discussion of
other historical aspects of the rich Punjabi culture and its influence on
the political expression of the times. It is common knowledge that the
Punjab derives its name from Persian, comprising the words of Panj (five)
and Ab (water) meaning land of five rivers, Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi,
Beas and the Sutlej. It consisted of rich alluvial tracts of land, or the
Doab between two confluent rivers, the Sind–Sagar, Jech, Bist, Rechna, and
the Bari Doabs. The term Punjab was used during the reign of Mughal emperor
Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar. In the documents of Mughal period the use of the
terms Sarkar-e-Punjab and Suba-e-Punjab and this region remained longest
under Islamic influences. Indo-Islamic confluences inspired by the Sufis,
Sheikhs, Pirs and Ulemas followed them in their wake. In many towns of the
Punjab, they opened Khankahs and Jamait Khanas, amongst which those at
Multan, Uch, Ajodhan, and Lahore were of great sanctity. The Punjab has
acted not merely as a repository of the Indo- Islamic mystical traditions
but a focal point in the process of its diffusion. All the classical mystic
writings like Kashf al-Mahjub, Awariful Maarif, Futuhat-e-Makkiya, Masnavi
of Jalaluddin Rumi and other mystics were first received, accepted in
Punjab and then transmitted to the rest of India. Even today the Sufi
lyrics sung by of Abida Parveen, Fateh Ali Khan, Amarjeet Kaur and others,
Pakistani and Indian Punjabis are based on the Sufi kalam of the mystic
saints of Punjab (such as Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussain, Sultan Bahu, Khwaja
Ghulam Farid etc.) and Mughal poets Amir Khusrao. They sing in Punjabi,
Urdu, Sindhi, Seraiki, and Persian, and enthral audiences in Delhi and
beyond, many who claim ancestry from former west Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan
and Afghanistan.
Indeed, it has been noted by several contemporaries, such as Mr R. M. Lohia
that boundaries did not exist in personal interactions. There was neither
competition between people of different religions, nor tensions between
them whether they were Muslim, Sikh or Hindu, and, intermarriage was common
as indeed was sharing of customs, cuisine and couture. As Mushirul Hasan
has noted, in 1945-46, Malcolm Darling, the Commissioner was astounded by
the similarities of the different groups in the Ravi, Chenab, Sutlej and
Beas observing how similar and intertwined the rituals, rites and,
practices were. In addition they had common ancestors who intermarried and
continued to practice as they wished, be it as Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. He
noted perceptively, “What hash politics makes of this tract where Hindu,
Muslim and Sikh are as mixed up as ingredients in a well-made pilauf.”
Cartography has always been integral to Empire building and its
consolidation. Thus, what is gravely missing from her analysis of
cartography of territory are land-person relations, i.e. the cartography of
human experience.
In addition there is no discussion of the enduring impact of the land
settlements, the preparation of detailed inventories of land use, including
soil measurements, techniques of payment, revenue and taxation and caste
identities which were integral to revenue collection. Official attitudes
saw caste in terms of a fixed structure a giving it a permanent
subjectivity. In the colonial context, identities had a way of defining
even the people who rejected them: caste was seen less as a performance or
a process, more as a tightly knit hierarchy, a functional fit. In the
experience of ordinary people such official social identities ultimately
determined their fate, and they were forced by circumstance into relying on
those identities. What James Mill prescribed in 1824 was faithfully
followed: “We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by
means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign
language….What then shall that language be?….I have no knowledge of either
Sanscrit or Arabic.…But…I have never found one who could deny that a single
shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of
India and Arabia….The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to
recapitulate….I think it is clear that English is better worth knowing than
Sanscrit or Arabic …and that to this end our efforts ought to be directed.”
While the author has discussed the Census and its importance in the
deliberations, there is no investigation of how the Census was conducted,
the nature of questions that were asked which separated and divided
communities of people, nor of the anti-Census agitations that erupted in
various parts. One important example recorded by a senior civil servant of
the United Provinces is revealing. During the 1931 Census operation, E.A.H.
Blunt, a settlement officer, noted he was surprised by the agitations
against a record of caste because ordinary people contended that “the mere
act of labelling persons as belonging to a caste tends to perpetuate the
system It is striking that any Hindu should hold that opinion and what is
even more striking is that nearly two million of them should agree with it
in so far as to state that they had no caste at all.”
She correctly observes that the Muslim League exercised little influence
until the 1940s and it was the Unionists who had the most power. What she
does not mention is that all Muslim political parties, including the
Khaksar Tehrik of Allama Mashriqi, opposed the Partition of India. Mashriqi
was arrested on 19 March 1940,as were other leaders. Had the Intelligence
records in Lahore and Amritsar and those of other district collectorates
been consulted by Chester, much information could have been gleaned on the
draconian policing and other repressive measures adopted. Contrary to what
she suggests the British were keen to partition India. It was not the
Thana, but, the chowkidar in the village at the lowest level who
represented ‘the eyes and ears of the government’ and reported to the
thana. The colonial state arrogated the fundamental structure of authority
and power to itself. It was in the interests of the colonial system to
supplement its own formal institutions by manipulating these indigenous
social networks in producing and reproducing social and political
identities; this process generated a “culture of terror” in which relations
of domination (the bailiffs, goondas, and chowkidars) were built into the
culture and life of people. Their leaders’ continuous attempts to spearhead
the struggles against colonial rule remained fraught and constantly
repressed.
Chester does not examine the legacy of political consciousness that had
sharpened with massacres of Jallianwala Bagh, discuss the powerful impact
of the Ghadr movement, the assassinations of Kitchlew, Satyapal and others,
Lala Lajpat Rai and indeed, the incarceration of Shaheed Bhagat Singh and
his companions all followers of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha which became the
Hindustan Socialist Republican Army in the 1920s promoting anarchism to
achieve vasudhaiva kutumbakam or universal brotherhood in India. And,
these events had a profound bearing on the politics of the region in the
1930s and 1940s, a shared struggle against imperialism that was connected
with the rest of the subcontinent.
Contrary to Chester’s claim, Gandhi’s influence in the Congress was not on
the wane. Gandhi was not consulted and he refused to participate in the
negotiations as he remained very much against the Partition, “My whole soul
rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic
cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of
God.” He noted that they had waited for thirty years and they could wait a
bit longer. He remained at the helm, opposed along with many others, whilst
Nehru, Setalvad and a few more sat on the panel and accepted the Partition
Plan. And, as Chester notes, the communication between Nehru and
Mountbatten made the latter give up the idea of a UN intervention at
Nehru’s behest and reveals support for the Partition by the attending
Congressmen. As Mosley quotes Nehru “We were tired men and we were getting
on in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison
again- and if we stood out for a united India, as we wished it, prison
obviously awaited us. We saw the fires burning in Punjab and heard of the
killings. The Plan of Partition offered us a way.” Nehru is also reported
to have observed that Pakistan would be compelled by its limitation to
return to the Indian fold, little realising at the time that it would
become an unattainable.
The Radcliffe Award
It would have been useful if the author had teased problems recognised in
the mission of the Punjab commission, “to demarcate the boundaries of the
two parts of the Punjab, on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous
majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will take into
account other factors. “And, given the subject of the book, she could have
attached as an Appendix, the Radcliffe Award for the Punjab, a
six-paragraph document describing the dividing line between the east and
west of the province.
Deliberations with the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims each with separate maps
led to Amritsar remaining in India while Lahore went to Pakistan. All
districts other than Amritsar, which was 46.5% Muslim, had Muslim
majorities, albeit, in Gurdaspur, the Muslim majority, at 51.1%, was
slender. At a smaller area-scale, only three tehsils’ in the Bari doab had
non-Muslim majorities. These were Pathankot in the extreme north of
Gurdaspur, which was not in dispute, and Amritsar and Tarn Taran in
Amritsar district. In addition, there were four Muslim-majority tehsils
east of Beas-Sutlej with two where Muslims outnumbered Hindus and Sikhs
together. Lahore went to Pakistan and Amritsar remained in India.
But what transpired was the titanic exodus of human populations accompanied
by carnage of enormous proportions, which has not been properly measured.
It was triggered when over fifteen million people were suddenly forced to
leave their homes and move across new borders. Most of the
‘mojahirs’refugees who settled in Punjab Pakistan came from Indian Punjab,
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Rajasthan. Based on
conservative journalists estimate and the Census estimate of displaced
persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,250,000
Hindus, Sikhs and Jews moved to India from Pakistan immediately after
partition. Also, more Muslims in Pakistan have chosen to come and stay in
India than Muslims in India have chosen to move to Pakistan. About 78% of
the population transfer took place in the west, with Punjab accounting for
most of it, six million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in
Pakistan, almost eight million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to East
Punjab in India; elsewhere in the west, two million moved in each direction
to and from Sind. Those who migrated came to be known as the Mojahirs
settling in Punjab Pakistan, They remain discriminated against, and were
prevented from marrying locally, and later d formed the MQM party.
Ironically, Mr Jinnah himself was a mojahir indeed, other Presidents such
as Liaquat Ali Khan born in Karnal, Gen Zia-ul-Haq born in Jalandhar, Gen
Pervez Musharraf and so forth. These themes should have been included in
the discussion of the politics. And, also, the Indo-Pak wars which Chester
analyses inadequately.
Chester is partial to Radcliffe and Mountbatten giving them a clean chit
and she refuses to accept the criticisms from Radcliffe’s and Mountbatten’s
contemporaries. For example, she takes umbrage at Leonard Mosley (a
contemporary of Radcliffe) when he states that Radcliffe was completely
ignorant of India and was not given a proper map to work with but Radcliffe
himself pointed out to Lapierre, “The equipment I had at my disposal was
totally inadequate. I had no very large scale maps.”(p.85).
Contrary to what Chester argues the geographical unity of boundaries
happened in spite of the British. The various nationalist confrontations
came to be unified under the Congress movement spearheaded by Gandhi as
also, the left-wing kisan agitations. Boundaries had existed during the
reign of Harsh and, much later under the Mughals included Afghanistan with
connections to the Central Asian Steppes. Of greater significance were the
indigenous readings of the landscape, indeed, in cosmological terms the
routes of pilgrimage extended from western Tibet to Amarnath in Kashmir to
Kanyakumari, and Rameshwaram and from there to east and western frontiers.
What is not taken into account is that there were six Partitions of the
Subcontinent, two Partitions of Afghanistan in 1879 and 1893, the Partition
of Bengal in 1903-04, the loss of Burma in April 1937 and west Aden,
Musta?marat ?Adan, in 1937, Ceylon in 1947, and the same year between India
and Pakistan and all these Partitions had a ripple effect throughout the
region. The people were not the silent majority, as she wrongly argues but,
in this instance the Congress and Muslim League leaders who acquiesced did
not act in the interests of their people, and as Lohia had pointed out, the
abyss between the rulers and the ruled.
Nation states as the modern form of governance in Europe evolved naturally,
over three centuries. And yet, they remain negotiable, for example, the
boundaries of the former Westphalia State remain unresolved in some
instances and, the recent question of Scottish Independence. Partitions are
often understood as inevitable in the formation of nation states. But are
they? Freedom was inevitable, Partition was not as many contemporaries
observed. In the Indian subcontinent, partitions happened in weeks. To the
many millions, the Partition remains a heinous crime and drawing of the
boundary line was in itself, faulty. As has been noted by Mushirul Hasan
notes, the dividing line between the east and west of the province,
“…wobbled from communal to economic to strategic factors’, followed no
natural dividing features such as rivers or mountain ranges, cut across
villages, canal systems and communication lines, in the process separating
communities and bisecting homes. Large populations of Muslims, Hindus and
Sikhs found themselves on the ‘wrong’ side of the border. “At no point in
time did the local people have any say in the matter and they felt betrayed
and herein were the seeds sown of Hindu Muslim antagonisms among the
Punjabis and Sindhis. They were torn apart from each other, from their
shared communities being forced to flee. While Chester’s undertaking of an
extremely weighty theme is laudable and opens the gate for further
research, as it stands it is disappointing and perilously careless in
composition and scholarship. The traumatic effects of territorial loss,
moral and social dislocation and painful separation of human communities
continue to reverberate in the Indian subcontinent with tragic
consequences. These themes need to be explored with greater scholastic
rigour and sensitivity.
Lucy P Chester
Borders and Conflict in South Asia; the Radcliffe Boundary Commission and
the Partition of Punjab,
218pp. Manchester University Press
9780719078996
Dr Kusum Gopal is an UN Expert ( South Asia, East Africa and the MENA
region)
We totally disagree with the biased article that tries to justify gross injustices.
Sir Radcliff took Rs 6 Corore as a bribe and ran from South Asia. In one of the most atrocious examples of bias, the boundaries of the new republics were not announced on August 14th, but on August 17th, so both countries had to live with the fait accompli
There was absolutely no moral or legal justification to hand over the Muslim majority districts of Ferozepur (the only arsenal that Pakistan was to get) to Bharat, and no justification to take a wild turn int he boundary along the Ravi to give away the Muslim majority area of Gurdaspur to Bharat. These cities were handed over to Bharat so that Bharat would get the land link to Kashmir–which was used to land troops into Srinagar before the so called article of accession was signed. Bharat now claims that the article of accession is now lost–if it ever existed. All the dates in the article are all wrong.
Of course there are monumental errors in the article, like saying that Muhajirs in the Punjab were discriminated against! That is a load of BS. Zia Ul Haq and many army figures are the East Punjabis. In fact half of Lahore and surrounding areas are from East Punjab.
We have tackled each and every point in this bogus article in various articles on this site. We will republish those soon
OFF the track Mr or MS Risa.
Your long piece is irrelevant to the theme of the article focussed on the ‘root’ of partition and that is abt 200 yrs deep.
In short, u may/may not know that ” aryan/semitic language nationalism/racism” was fraud/strategy to plunder india and created ” hindu-brtish aryan” brotherhood”in 1800 and a plan for a future ” hindu india”. This idea is detailed in ” urdu/hindi anartificial divide–african heritage” a history based on evolution of some 100,000 yrs. What u or mr Kusum Gopal talk is more of the same-apologies of religious racism including perhaps ” Ahmadiolgy”–a british creation for good/bad. Your posting needs some corrections:
Jinnah was not a mahajir; He was a sindhi based in karachi and his family was really rooted in Multan area. The Word Ab( water) is not persian or Sanskrit Av; It is loan from ancient Sumerian ( 3000 BC).Indian and persian civilization and languages are from west asia/egypt ( detailed in that book). Partition of india , a tragedic event is history now and its real history is rooted inthe history of biblical fraud/racism/linguistic creationism/religious nationalism.
Sorry Sirs. This is not what the article is about. It shows how the British divided us in teh Subcontinent from the tiem they arrived here..- Kindly re-Read original archival adn published literature first. The identity of ‘Hindu’ is indeed misplaced as it meant all inhabitants this side of teh Indus! And, included al faiths and philosophies– be they Muslim, Sikh and also what came later to be known as ‘Hindoo’- All lived togetehr in peace and harmony. We must understand what the past was like – not fuel so hatred when we share cultural links that go back millennia!
Please read the colonial docs such as Home secretary HH Risley’s Report and understand that first. They divided us all and put us in categories which you talk about also.. and, Quaid -e-Azam Jinnah was not based in Karachi but in Bombay! His mother was a Parsi and he spent a long time studying in England and working at the Inns of court.
What is being argued is that Partition was not inevitable. I also am an archaoeogist and the thirteen cities in Mesopotamia were warring cities an d we had an independant civilisation here — the Indus Valley which was primarily agrarian.
Another temple indoctrinated biased Bharati who only sees his version of events as the truth and is unable to see the other paradigm.
1) There was no “partition” of anything.
2) For the British, the British Indian Empire at times included Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Nepal, Lanka, Yemen, Aden etc. Even during its peak, it never included all of South Asia. In 1947 it only comprised of 40% of South Asia. For the French the French Indian Empire included “Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc.). For the Dutch the Dutch Indian Empire included Indo-Nesia. For the Portuguese the Portuguese Indian Empire included parts of Goa only. For Columbus the natives he found in America were called “Indians’. Other explorers called islands that they found on the other side of the global “West Indies”.
3) South Asia was never one monolith “country”–it has always been a conglomeration of various states who banded together in various configurations.
4) When the British arrived there were 572 states in South Asia. When the British left we had 572 states plus two new dominions Bharat and Pakistan
5) The old Indus Valley states, on the banks of the Indus banded togher to form Pakistan. THose on the Ganges formed Bharat. Those on the Brahamputra allied themselves with the Indus first and then went their own course. Nepal, and Lanka never joined the the other states.
6) The IVC was not Hindu in any sense of the word. They lived in a non-stratified society, did not worship the Hindu pantheon of Arjun, Laxmi, Ganesh, Sita, Ram etc. They wrote right to left, did not know Sanskrit,used a pictographic language, liked the bull, ate beef, and meat, were non vegetarian, buried their dead, and did not have a caste system
THERE WAS NO PARTITION OF ANYTHING.
Chaudhry Rehmat Alis and Iqbal’s vision for Pakistan was to create a state that would join the Central Asia States–hence the acronym Pakistan
No one divided anything. Qauid e Azam tried to find alliances with various states, Kalat, Dir, Hunza, Khairpur, Bhawalpur, Sylhet, Junagarh, Manvadar, Hyderabad, Kashmir, and even Bhopal—Bharat declared war on 560 states and Nehru considered any state that did not join the Indian Union in a state of war with Delhi. Hyderabad and Kashmir was forcibly occupied, and others were taken over with connivance. Read the history of the reluctance of hundreds who did not want to join Bharat.
THERE WAS NO PARTITION
The Quiad wanted to work with many states to build some sort of confederation–Nehru and Gandhi first accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, but later rejected. Even under the CMP, each state had to option to go independent after 15 years. Jinnah correctly thought they would go independent.
This is our version of events. Of course you cant accept this version because you have been indoctrinated by your temple which doles out religion as history.
This explanation is for our other readers who have a genuine desire to know what really happened.
You are right the definition of “Hindu” has changed over the years. Before the British arrived, there was no formal religion called “hinduism”. The folks worshiping different Gods did not refer to themselves as “Hindu”–they were followers of Ganesh, or Laxmi, or Nag etc. The British in their ignorance lumped everyone together either as “Indian” or as Hindu.
Those who lived West of the Indus were called Sindhi, and those East of the Baes/Ravi were called Hindu. Arab chroniclers called the inhabitants of Sind as Sindhi.
Indian archealogy.
Dear Talib,
You know very well as professional archealogist that egypt/babylon are accepted cradle and root of later Greek/india /chinese and Persia’s oldest-elamitic civilzation; additionally all those were created by migration from Africa.
India’s indus valley was colonised by mideast farmers in around 7000 BC but civilization is dated 2300-1700BC. Besides indus valley u had 15 centers of chinese type of civilizations in Kashmir-the famous ” Barzhome” culturs( 2000 BC). Additionally Rice farmers too migrated west from east asia in about 4-5 000 BC and oldest rice farming center is near Allahabad (about 2000BC),. So india is a mosaic/amalgam. Its claime to fame Sanskrit is drawn from ancient mideast from Akkadian ( oldest arabic) dated about 3000 Bc as written up by indian linguist Malati Shindge of JNU.
Your comment hardly reflect any archealogical reallities except what is fed by hindu nationlists who still believe in “mother india” as mother of all.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments, I am sorry I have to disagree, Indigenous forms of expression and learning existed independantly of Sumer and Mesopotamia in teh Subcontinent,
I agree with you that race and ethnicity is European and that tehy developed these racist categories and thinking..
I am studying linguistics in Archaeology and to date, the script of the IVC ( Indus valley Civilisation) has not be deciphered. I also have studied in much less detail the Mesopotamian civilisations and my Iraqi colleagues who have been working on Sumeria for nearly twenty five years note that these were separate indigenous civilisations – Indus and Mesopotamia – and ofcourse they traded with each otehr as also with Greece!
Sanskrit is the root of all Indo-European languages – sandhis in Sanskrit and the syntax is so diverse that one can pronounce any language correctly if one knows Sanskrit. As a linguist who has spent thirteen years I feel that research must be done throughly that is from living and working in tehse regions and studying literature, histories and anthropology.
I do not see why one should trace it all thus as you do-
The chinese borrowed heavily from the Subcontinent.. Buddhism etc.. even shao ling from yoga.
thanking you,
Talib,
I am not a Bharati as you put it! That is not correct term- One says Indian or Pakistani or Afghani!I feel that this Hindu-Muslim and anti India sentiments you express are precisely colonial. The Partition happened sixty-seven years ago -and we share five thousand years of history and culture and co-existence!! In fact contrary to what you say Sir, borders were drawn and this article I read is extremely good!
If you study in detail the cultures you see how this is a blip and how much prosperity we can share together.. We wd destroy the west and all of us would be prosperous and free to live as we wish to in every sense of the word!
I am sorry that you have not explored the other writings of our esteemed leaders.
Thank you
Dear Dr Jamil Ahmed Khan Sir,
As you said the west caused a lot of incorrect understandings..
The cradle of civilisation was not just Egypt/Babylon.
That has been discarded by scholarship..
We in the subcontinent can be proud! Indus Valley existed at the same time. The burnt Bricks used in Mesopotamia were different from the Baked bricks used in the IVC,, and also while the script has been deciphered the Sumerian tablets etc, there is to date very little on the script of the IVC, The IVC was independant and indigenous and that is agreed by archaeological scholarship.
Certainly Africa was important but so also were other countries.. Ramapitchecus man etc, Sanskrit had its flowered here in the Subcontinent.
We are still in the process of understanding our past and there is a long way to go.There are diggings elsewhere and in the south of India 3500 or 5000 years submerged cities are being discovered in the ocean beds! Just now google maps show many more Valley of teh Kings in Egypt.
I think it is extremely dangerous and erroneous to put on the past what we feel in the present. We may hate India and Indians but we do so not just at the peril of good scholarship but our own survival.. Please note that I have eighteen years of study and archaoeological experience.
As the Lahore rickshawala told me — Why do we hate the good people who are from the same flesh and blood as we are? Chinese are pork eaters and do not care for us at all. They will cause destruction and we are suckers!
Thank you Sir!Talib
Amazing?
Which rickshaw was it? Was it a Cycle-rickshaw? I’d like a precise answer.
Pakistan is the successor state of the Mughals. Nothing we say should be construed as being Anti-Anything. We are not against any country of the world–and certainly not Anti-Indian. We don’t hate Indians or anyone else.
The people of the Indus had nothing to do with the people of the Ganges.
The people of the Indus did not know Sanskrit, ate beef, wrote from right to left, were no vegetarian, did not worship the Hindu Pantheon, did not know a caste system, did not know the horse, did not know Arjun, Ganesh, Ram, Sita, lived in a non-stratified society, were an urban society, was not a rural society (Ram, Sita, Hanuman etc.)
While the Indus Valley was exclusively on the banks of the Indus, it preceded any development on the Ganges.
The official and constitutional name of the country is Bharati (also known as India in English). We simply use the Bharati name. “India is a ephemeral as the equator” Sir Winston Churchil.
The French Indian Empire was called Indo-China which included Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam.
The Dutch Indian Empire was in Indo-Nesia
Columbus landed in so called India Actually later called America) and called the natives Red Indians.
Islands far far from British, French or Dutch India were called “West Indies”.
The British Indian Empire at times included Iraq, Yemen, Aden, Burma, Nepal, Lanka, and Afghanistan–when those countries became independent they were not partitioned off something.
There was no “partition”. The states on the Indus banded together to live together as they had done fo thousands of years. The people of the Ganges were forced into the so called Bharati Union. The folks on the Brhmaputra allied theimselves with the Indus Vally people, and then decided to live separately.
Mr Talib,
You dont seem to be ‘professional archealogist’. Your views are based on ‘indo-centric’creationism’ and aryan racism. That is all i can say about your position. You need to read and update. Thanks for your indulgence here.
Talib
“dumb, deaf and blind” is what the Book say about person like you, when you stated >
“We may hate India and Indians but we do so not just at the peril of good scholarship but our own survival”.
Explain your scholarship in terms of a nations survival-ship criteria?
Leave aside the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian or like Garbage. Explain what is in your mind when stated the hate is for survival.
Do learn the Islamic History besides archeology.
Your next statement >
“As the Lahore rickshawala told me — Why do we hate the good people who are from the same flesh and blood as we are? Chinese are pork eaters and do not care for us at all. They will cause destruction and we are suckers”.
I will ask you to learn about Chinese History versus Indian. If you affirm your beliefs as a result of a conversation with a Ricksha driver, then it would be not wrong to say, that you learn t your Archeology from a Bull cart driver or a cart pusher that sells fruits or vegetables.
Assalamu-Elekum
Mr Talib is right about the cradle of civilization.
The theory of Mesopotamia as the single cradle of civilization has now been discarded. Instead historians believe in multiple cradles, as mentioned below :
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/civiliza
The specific characteristics of civilization are: food production………Such characteristics originally emerged in several different parts of the prehistoric world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, the central Andes, and Mesoamerica.
As far as the nonsense Navees has been saying that IVC is not Hindu, the following will dispel all this.
http://history-world.org/indus_valley.htm
“Their mother Goddess and the dancing god of fertility endured, and some of their symbols, such as the swastika and lingam, were prominent in later artistic and religious traditions. Harappan tanks or public bathing ponds remain a central feature of Indian cities, particularly in the south.”
From the above report can be concluded that the Mother Goddess concept is very much Hindu. All other religions mostly worship a Father God. Swastika and Lingam is of course again Hindu, all coming from the IVC.
Mr Talib’s warning about the Chinese is also correct. Pakistan should learn from the Indonesian experience. Sukarno was obsessed with hatred for the US hence formed close ties with the Chinese. When Beijing learned that the military was about to over throw Sukarno, they launched a counter coup in 1965, known as the 30th September movement, which failed. The military blamed the poor Indonesian communist, which resulted in the largest massacre in human history. But even though Beijing failed politically, they succeeded economically. Today the economy of the largest Muslim country is 80% controlled by the Chinese. This resulted in intense feeling of hatred and resulted in the riots of 1998. For 3 days Jakarta was lawless. The Chinese shops were looted, their homes burned, their ladies raped by the masses. Even Chinese cars fleeing to the airport were stopped, and the passengers dragged out and raped or killed. Please ask any Indonesian, 1965 and 1998 is darkest year of their nation, in which both cases Chinese are involved. In 1965 they were the director, in 1998 they became the victim.
BHARAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INDUS VALLEY CIVLIZAION–EITHER UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION OR UNDER THE GUISE OF GEOGRAPHY. The IVC is Pakistani
>>India
Bharat was no cradle. The Bharati civilization was rural, existed on the banks of the Ganges. Sita, Ram, Hanuman, and the Mahabharata and Kora-panda were were all rural
Bharat had nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilization which was Non-Hindu, Non-rural, Non-stratified, Non-Sanskrit, Non-vegetarian. They ate beef, buried their dead, used a photographic script, wrote from right to left, and did not have a caste system
Arjun, Laxmi, and Ganesh were not present in the Indus valley Civilization (IVC). The Swastika has been found all over the world, in North and South America as well as in Australia and in various tribes in Africa. None of them were Hindu. Little shiney stones are present all over the world. There is no evidence that these little stones are “lingam” or Hindu in any sense of the word as it is understood today.
>>Sukarno
Sukarno was a national hero in Indonesia who struggled for Indonesian independence in their glorious struggle against the Dutch. Sukarno gave Pakistan 6 submarines in 1965 to fight Bharat. Older Indonesians remember Pakistan with fondness. Younger Indonesians love Pakistan in Islamic brotherhood. A Western plot was hatched to overthrow and install a brutal dictatorship on Indonesia under Suharto. After a struggle Suharto was eliminated and Sukarnoputre became Prime Minister restoring Indonesia to popular government. The Jamat e Islami is the most potent force in Indonesia today. The Sukarno period was the glorious period of Indonesia. The next one will be Islamic.
Your attempt at revisionism is as hollow as the narrative you spout.
Lingham, Goddesses, Swastika , Yoga,etc, west asian/egyptian imports.
Shri Gidwani ji,
Please read history of egypt-mesopotamia etc. You see all of the above item since 3100BC in written formats. Read Thomas Mcvelly, Staphanie Dalley etc. The word Shiv is too an import from Hitties of syria( 1600BC) means: God.U dont read anything about shiv or any sanskrit vedas or any hinduism untill 4-5 AD.
I have all the respect for your hindu faith but it is all west asian and african imports; In india, any author writing about it will never get promoted. Look at Malati Shingde’s work showing Sanskrit coming off from ancient arabic called Akkadian about 5000 yrs ago in west asia.
Debating as religious nationalist with other religious nationalists is fine and fun but real history is history. If u dont know u can always learn if serious.
If you insist – Asalaam Walikuum Nakvees Sahab, You can take Churchill’s point of view but he is a non entity and a racist!
You have the right to think as you wish, But be aware that your thinking is extremely colonial, It is what the British wanted,
With reference to IVC it was ancient and of the Indian Subcontinent, We have Lothal and now we are finding many other sites inside this great and ancient continent where peoples intermarried and intermingled. We were all united, Did you know The great Guru Nanak went to Mecca nine times and also Mansarovar. He epitomised the syncretic cultures.
Think of Bhagat Singh who died for us. And, of the anti _colonial agitations. We must value who we are correctly and as a Pakistani I feel we must get out of this colonial thinking and be with India crush those who destroy us! The Chinese do not care for us, never will!
That is why there is so much suffering as we are all divided within.. this is what the article on the Partition posted by Risa indicates. W
BEFORE THE SIXTH CENTURY BC – true all ate beef drank etc, But with the coming of Buddhism and so forth.. this changed as cows were used for agriculture and the worship began.. And, the wide currency that Buddhism was favoured with grew… See Trevor Ling on teh Buddha. Interesting analysis.
As for the Indian Gods they are forms of nature worship and, that is teh Animism – philosophy as explained that all can get salvation and all people regardless of their beliefs are as important as the others..
I agree that History must be written correctly and there are histories. But what one finds in archaeological digs is evidence that IVC was separate and had no Akkadian origins but certainly traded with the Mesopotamia as also Greece etc. It was indigenous roots and was an extremely thriving civilisation. And, it spread all over western and central Indian subcontinent.. We are still looking into its expanse.. and also, its heritage today
yes, Anatolia is important as Africa and ofcourse the origins of all of us.. was Africa – but new skeletons found elsewhere suggest other forms of Human ancestors..
Tools point to cavemen leaving Africa 30,000 years earlier than previously thought
Cavemen began colonising the rest of the world 30,000 years earlier than previously thought, archaeologists claim.
They have found a treasure trove of stone tools which provide the ‘smoking gun’ showing humans made their way out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago. It was previously thought to be between 40,000 and 70,000.
An international team lead by Dr. Jeffrey Rose of Birmingham University found the distinctive sharp tools, used to kill prey, at more than 100 sites in what is now Oman, in the Arabian Peninsula.
Major discovery: Scientists found a treasure trove of tools in what is now Oman, in the Arabian Peninsula, showing humans made their way out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago
They are from the Nubian, or Middle Stone Age period, evidence of which has previously only been found in central Africa and provides a ‘trail of stone breadcrumbs’ showing their expansion route.
It could change everything for scientists investigating how humans spread around the world as the climate and the route they took would have been different.
Dr Rose said: ‘After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we’ve found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa.
‘What makes this so exciting is that the answer is a scenario almost never considered.’
The team used state-of-the-art technology to date the sites in Oman and found the toolmakers entered Arabia 106,000 years ago, if not earlier, and appeared to have settled there for some time.
What surprised the experts was to find their tools in a mountainous area 850m above sea level, as they thought cavemen would have remained in coastal areas of the arid country to survive by fishing.
Back in time: Ancient man, similar to those portrayed in BBC show Walking With Cavemen, would have used high-quality flints to make their tools
But during this earlier period, Arabia would have been experiencing heavy rainfall which turned its barren deserts into fertile grasslands, with plentiful freshwater and high-quality flints to make tools.
They are hoping to follow the trail to see whether this pioneering branch of cavemen survived the Last Ice Age which would have resulted in harsh conditions from around 70,000 years ago and may have wiped them out.
The research is published today in the journal PLoS ONE.
No remains of these humans in Arabia have ever been found but it is believed the toolmakers were modern humans rather than Neanderthals, who were also in Africa at the time.
Discoveries in Arabia back up new genetic evidence which shows the route of human migration.
Earlier this month a six-year study mapping genetic patterns showed the original out-of-Africa humans crossed the Arabian sea and headed south to what is now Yemen and thenceforth to India and Iran.
It was previously thought they had gone north to Egypt and Israel and then crossed the Red Sea to Europe but genetic data from around the world, analysed by IBM’s Computational Biology Centre shows this happened a lot later.
The theory that all humans have a common ancestor and all came from Africa was first suggested by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man but not fully accepted by scientists until the 1980s
Human language originated in Africa?
ANI
Morocco April 15, 2011First Published: 14:31 IST(15/4/2011)
Last Updated: 14:53 IST(15/4/2011)
Wondering where did humanity utter its first words? Sub-Saharan Africa. A new linguistic analysis attempted to rewrite the story of Babel by borrowing from the methods of genetic analysis – and found that modern language originated in sub-Saharan Africa and spread across the world with migrating hum an populations.
Quentin Atkinson of the University of Auckland in New Zealand designed a computer program to analyse the diversity of 504 languages. Specifically, the program focused on phonemes – the sounds that make up words, like “c”, “a”, and “tch” in the word “catch”.
Africa turned out to have the greatest phonemic diversity – it is the only place in the world where languages incorporate clicks of the tongue into their vocabularies, for instance – while South America and Oceania have the smallest. Remarkably, this echoes genetic analyses showing that African populations have higher genetic diversity than European, Asian and American populations.
This is generally attributed to the “serial founder” effect: it”s thought that humans first lived in a large and genetically diverse population in Africa, from which smaller groups broke off and migrated to what is now Europe. Because each break-off group carried only a subset of the genetic diversity of its parent group, this migration was, in effect, written in the migrants” genes.
Atkinson argued that the process was mirrored in languages: as smaller populations broke off and spread across the world, human language lost some of its phonemic diversity, and sounds that humans first spoke in the African Babel were left behind.
“One of the big questions is whether there was a single origin of language”, New Scientist quoted Atkinson as saying.
“This suggests there was one major origin in Africa,” added Atkinson.
The study has been mentioned in the Journal Science.
Sorry Mr Navees, You are filled with hatred and anger. And, that is justifiable in personal interactions – but not at the level of scholarship. It also does not help your arguments,
We must promote good scholarship and intellectual debates. And, ofcourse just look at the Ottomans and the Mughals! How much good they did! And, how poor and empty western categories and understandings are and likely to remain.
I read the Qu’ran and learn everyday from it and I have studied in India also. I am an Afghan refugee and married to a Muslim. I feel Afghani and also see how close we all are – India is a great and wonderful country with beautiful religious music and mosques.
Asalaam Walikuum Waqqaas,
Chinese History shows how utterly self centred and selfish they are. They are racist and in HK they have denied our brtotehrs the rights of citizenship on grounds odf racde, They are persecuting the Uighurs! and tell them during Ramadan not to fast and to convert!
And, how Tibet has been destroyed by them and we will also be if we are not careful! Akshai Chin is not theirs nor is Tibet, They need to get back to their borders and stick there, We have so much in common with India, with Afghanistan with Sri Lanka and with the rest of south Asia. Let us be together and crush the Chinese !
Risa
Don’t need psyche-babble from you
Not sure what you are talking about. These are the opinions of the author to be respected and honored
Doesn’t your “democracy” teach you that? Of course not. For your kind facts only exist as long as they agree with your opinions
Anyone with an opinion other then your temple indoctrinated version of truth is called names in your world
We simply narrate facts and our opinions.
You don’t have to visit our site if you don’t like our ideas!
Not sure if you even read the article –your comments have no relationship to the article
Not “all”. If “all” ate beef then your entire religion has no meaning because you are claiming Buddhist heritage though Buddhist reject everything about you and your religion
The IVC was urban, non-stratified, did not worship the cow, did bury their dead and did not worship the Hindu pantheon (Arjun, Ganesh, Hanuman, Sita, Ram etc.)
The presence of swastikas means nothing. It is present in North America, Africa, Latin America, and Australia–all Non-Hindu.
Lothal happened at the end of the IVC and was an extension and appendix of the valley of the Indus. The Ganges Valley had nothing to do with the Indus Valley. The urban IVC was ancient and separate from the Ganges which was rural
Talib
“Asalaam Walikuum Waqqaas” gives you away.
Asalaam is written as Assalam or Assalaam.
Wa means ‘and’. Therefore has no place in Muslim greetings for a person originally calling out salutation, other than to reply salutation with ‘Wa’Elekum Assalam. Meaning ‘Peace be unto you also’.
If you take Wa and li together to make ‘Wali’. It means ‘Protector or Guardian’ therefore not part of Salutation.
Kuum is not an Arabic word. Though Kum is. For instance >
“Taqabbal Allah mina wa minkum.” or in English, ‘May God accept the good deeds done by you and by us’. To this phrase you can easily reply, “Shukran” [sh-kran], or ‘thank you’.
Therefore its imperative that you do not hide your Hindu persuasion for whatever reason. If you believe in it, then take a stand for it.
China is a incorporation of many ethnic tribes that was fighting each other for centuries until Mao Tse Dong’s cultural movement who massacred Millions to end the ongoing internal conflict. None of these group can claim to be ethnic Chinese. China is the only Country in the World that has banned all the religious scriptures, except the Noble Qura’n. Muslims have freedom in China and there are 20,000 Mosques where Chinese Muslims attend the prayer.
The Rothschild and the Rockefeller encouraged Mao Tse Dong for his movement. At this moment the same Duo with other Rich Families intends to use Mao’s strategy in rest of the world.
All the manufacturing Industries has moved to China, except Ford. Therefore crushing China is mere a thought floated to entrap gullibles like India.
The western nations are keeping Uighur Turkic Chinese card against the Mainland China for its own future agendas as they have done elsewhere. As far as China forcing Muslim to abandon Islam is concerned, it is absolutely not true.
Getting together:
I and you are on same page. Free Kashmir, and lets get together. Without the agenda of crushing any body or any Nation. Crushing China or any Nation is not possible as ALLAH is the RABB of ALL.
You did not reply to my query >
“Explain your scholarship in terms of a nations survival-ship criteria?
Leave aside the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian or like Garbage. Explain what is in your mind when stated the hate is for survival”.
Assalamu-Elekum
Messrs Waqaas/Navees
Walikuum Salaam
Sorry but you both have not understood the basics.. and, we must agree to disagree,
You will experience how wrong you are.. Well the Chinese have no choice – The Qu’ran must be allowed!
As for greetings and spellings – Arabic is best but so are all languages including regional ones.
talib
Correct pronunciation is important in Arabic Language, for proper meaning to convey. Otherwise the meaning changes. Only Muslims can distinguish the difference and not non-Muslims, especially Hindus.
Therefore you are not a Muslim but a pretender.
As for your remark, “Sorry but you both have not understood the basics” is concerned! You did not identify ‘basics’ in what category of sciences.
Crushing Tribes, Nations is a ‘Devilish’ or ‘Barbaric’ basic followed by Imperialist and Racist few including the Racist Fraudulent Chosen ones and the Brahmins.
Non Muslims are destroyers. While Muslims are builders. Its a task of every Muslim to convey the message of the Final Messenger to all humanity. They can not deliver the message to dead people, but to live ones. Weather the receiver follows it or not is not Muslim’s concern.
One man namely Sa’ad Bin Abi Waqqas (ra) is credited in reverting Chinese to Islam. Muslim Chinese were given honorary post in different Chinese Dynasties including shipping and transportation due to their honesty and loyalty to rulers.
Your response was un-learned. The Chinese see a similarity in teaching of Qura’n to Philosophy of their Teachers, thus toleration as compare to other man made perverted Text.
Assalamu-Elekum
Man and languages from africa:
Dear Mr Talib and Gidwani sahbaan.
Afrcian genesis and west asian farming ( 12000 yrs ago) now constitute the ‘ state of art in anthropology’ as i have deliberated in showing Urdu/hindi as rooted in mideast farmers/cradle. Multicentrism was 19th century idea. Off course hindu nationalists and bibliocal racists would love to stay drowned in the old addiction.
India really by 2500 Bc had 3 oldest centers: 1) Barzhome – 15 centers in kashmir and nearby hill tracts– accepted as ” chinese”People here ate dog and we see dog burials and chinese style pits and graves.2) indus valley is mesopotamian–well accepted–u see Gilgamesh on seals; this was settled by oldest farmers from midesat presumed as ‘ draviduian speakers’ cousins of elamites of Iran in about 7000 BC 3) rice farmers from east asia in about 4000BC brought rice in. We have oldest rice near Allahabad ( 2000 BC) according to Allchins- So most of eastern indian culture and language etc is east asian– austric munda adivasis.
India thus slowly evolved as a mosiac of 3-4 ancient streams and gradually became ” india-hindu-budhists”. Pls look in my work if u may in ” urdu/hindi anartificial divde, african heritage”.
MR Talib please look at Dr Shigde’s book showing Ancient arabic called Akkadian as the mother of Sanskrit which is neither from ” Satya yug” or from a biblical fiction ” aryans”. India’s beauty is ” cultural diversity” from the very beginning.
Many muslims too fall into the mythical trap of muslim civilization exposed in my book.How and why ” man’s oldest civilization ‘ west asia’ of some 5000 yrs accepted as ” cradle” of all and suddenly after 7th century we name it as ” islamic”; this is also erronious as are other priestly labells, Jewish, judeo-christian or Hinduic; These are great priestly/political fraud/opium of man.
Talib,
Muslims are allowed to pray in China.
Migrants orkers like in most countries are treated differently – agreed.
China is a great civilisation with whom we as Muslims share a long and peaceful history.
Aksai Chin is barren land, strategic to China as is their friendship to us.
I am a Kashmiri and feel that was a wise move, be more concerned about “that race” that crawled from under the rock along the dirty Ganges River and their contempt for Muslims, Islam and what they do to my Kashmiri brethren should never be overlooked.
Stop writing in the shadows Hindu – you Hindus have a cowardly trait where you adopt the ID of a Muslims, Afghan, Arab, Chinese, American etc etc to spread hate and write nonsense.
It is so reflective of your cowardly race, history and so reflective of your heores like that 4ft pathetic coward Siva who stabbed a 7ft Afzal Khan in the back under pretence.
This who you are and like the mythological history you have conjured up for yourselves everything you are is a LIE.
A nation of gutter trash liars.