MUSLIM LEAGUE’S UNFINISHED AGENDA ( Reviews ) A PLEDGE UNREDEEMED

http://www.prafullgoradia.com/unfinished-agenda/reviews.html

Exchange of Population was an assumption central to the concept of Pakistan

On his way back to Ratnagiri, Savarkar visited Bombay in the second week of November 1924. There the Muslim leader Shaukat Ali come to meet him… the Muslim leader told Savarkar that the Muslims had many other countries and they would leave India, if inevitable. Savarkar at once answered back, “O quite freely! Why do you wait? The Frontier Mail is daily running towards that direction!” Shaukat Ali was now quite nervous.

—-Veer Savarkar

Within half a year of his magnum opus Hindu Masjids, Praful Goradia is back with Muslim League’s Unfinished Agenda. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf during his July 2001 visit to India spoke of Kashmir as an unfinished agenda of Partition. Then President KR Narayanan blunted him by saying that peaceful co-existence between the two dominions, India and Pakistan, was an equally unfinished agenda. Evidently, both missed, or dared not speak about, the original unfinished agenda of Partition set by the Muslim League. It is to the credit of Prafull Goradia, ex-MP and former editor of BJP Today, to redeem it. Exchange of Population was the `Unfinished Agenda’ of the Muslim League as envisaged by the father figures of Partition.

Nationalists could hardly digest Jinnah’s specious two-nation theory, the corollary of which was Pakistan. Revolutionaries like Sardar Ajit Singh, Bhagat Singh’s revolutionary uncle, or Bhai Parmanand of Hindu Mahasabha died of cardiac arrests in 1947 upon learning that Pakistan had finally been conceded. But a realist like Dr BR Ambedkar, who authored Thoughts on Pakistan in 1940, supported Partition, arguing with facts and figures that Partition was the only way to bail out Hindus and Muslims from a dangerous impasse.

Partition had its genesis in the Muslim refusal to live as equal partners with Hindus in India after having lorded over them for centuries before European advent. Partition could also be attributed to Jinnah’s personal ambition of becoming a Sultan of a part of India, as Goradia points out, when he failed to be the Badshah of the whole. But most importantly the two-nation theory has its roots in Islam’s two-world theory that splits humanity into momins and kafirs — believers and infidels.

“Muslim vision,” Goradia says, “Could be credited to the community’s fundamental belief that a momin was unlikely to blossom fully as a servant of Allah unless he lived in a Dar-ul-Islam or a land governed by the Sharia.”

A proposition intrinsic to the political partition of India was the mutual exchange of residual minority population in each other’s territory. The book cites the example of such compulsive exchange of population between Greece and Turkey consequent upon the Treaty of Laussane, Switzerland, in 1923. It reproduces a clipping in The Dawn, now published from Karachi (December 3, 1946) headlined `Exchanged of Population a most practicable solution’. This was a statement by Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot, President of Punjab Muslim League. Another clipping from Dawn (December 4, 1946) said Bihar’s Muslim League demanded exchange of population and Sind Premier Mr Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah had offered land for United Provinces’ Muslims.

It is a well-known fact that while 85 per cent of Indian Muslims (nearly 100 per cent from today’s India) voted for Pakistan, only 15 per cent ultimately immigrated to their “sacred land”. One wonders why they didn’t board the `Train to Pakistan’ to be good momins there rather than being a disgruntled lot amidst kafirs in India a la N Jamal Ansari and Syed Shahabuddin. The purport of this book is to declare it is better late than never.

Here is a pertinent excerpt from the book: “At a press conference in Karachi on November 25, 1946, Jinnah had appealed to the central as well as provincial governments to take up the question of population exchange.

Earlier that year, Sir Feroze Khan Noon who later rose to be Prime Minister of Pakistan, while addressing Muslim League legislators in Patna, had gone to the extent of threatening re-enactment of the murderous orgies of Chengez Khan and Halaqu Khan if non-Muslims did not agree to exchange of population… Pir Illahi Bux, the Sindh leader, observed that he welcomed an exchange of population for the safety of minorities, as it would put an end to all communal disturbances.

Ismail Chundrigar, who also eventually became Prime Minister, said that the British had no right to hand over Muslims to a subject people, namely Hindus, over whom they had ruled for 500 years. Mohammed Ismail, a Madras leader, had declared that the Muslims of India were in the midst of a Jihad. Shaukat Hayat Khan, son of the more famous Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, had also given out threats to support transfer of population”.

Hindu-Muslim frictions could not cease in India merely by a political partition. Can a clash in Meerut or Jamshedpur be prevented by drawing a borderline at Wagha unless the populaces have been actually segregated?

The exchange of population truly happened only in the case of Punjab (East and West) but in a gory and aggressive manner. Post-partition Pakistan rapidly exercised its terror mechanism to expel and decimate Hindu population – probably in expectation of Muslims from India to arrive. But the political establishment in India not only withheld Muslim from migrating, also people like Sri Prakasa (India’s first High Commissioner to Pakistan) recalled many Benarasi Muslims back. Thus BR Ambedkar’s apprehension, that Partition without exchange of population would be worse than no Partition, came true. Goradia points out that Hizrat – Migration for the sake of faith – is held in high esteem in Islam. Prophet Mohammed undertook Hizrat from Mecca to Medina. Few lakh Muslims (out of which 20,000 were actually accepted) undertook Hizrat from Dar-ul-Harab of British India across Durban Line in Dar-ul-Islam Afghanistan.

Pakistan is fond of reminding India of Nehru’s unfulfilled promise of plebiscite in Kashmir. It is time we reminded Pakistan of Qaid-e-Azam’s unfulfilled wish. Whether the exchange of population takes place or not is different issue, one must acknowledge it as an unfinished agenda.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to MUSLIM LEAGUE’S UNFINISHED AGENDA ( Reviews ) A PLEDGE UNREDEEMED

  1. A.L.Rawal says:

    Congratulations on the publication of the magnum opus of Praful Goradia. Regards.
    A.L.Rawal

    • hinduawaken says:

      Thanks Rawalji for your cooperation love and encouragement in making this blog popular among the readers across the world.
      regards,
      SATYAMITRA

  2. I don`t agree. Muslims who decided to stay on in India were opponents of two nation theory propagated first by sawarkar and flag bearered by Jinnah.Exchange of population is no issue,the real issue is to deliver justice to muslims.the builder of Indian nation.

    • hinduawaken says:

      The so-called ’Nationalist’ and ‘secular’ Muslims in India have made false claims of having made incredible sacrifices during the struggle for India’s independence. More than 60 years after independence we hear the big lie in very offensive tones from the platforms of different political parties and at TV TALK SHOWS that we Indian Muslims have made tremendous sacrifices for the freedom of this country. The fact is contrary to it that, apart from the brief years of 1858-60 and 1920-22,Muslims suffered very little hardship between 1857-1947.It is forgotten by everyone that the Muslim League’s search for protection and safeguards (in the early years) and its struggle for an independent state (in the later years) were strictly constitutional efforts, peaceful campaigns and political fights, conducted through parliamentary debates and negotiations. NO MUSLIM LEAGUE LEADER LANGUISHED IN PRISONS. No Muslim masses faced British bullets. The many people who died or suffered horribly in 1947 were running away from their homes because their life was in danger, not because they were fighting for the creation of Pakistan. They were casualties of communal riot, not of anti-British warfare. At the time of partition Muslims shouted slogan” Hans ke liya hai Pakistan ,lad ke lenge Hindustan”हंस के लिया है पाकिस्तान,लड़ के लेंगे हिन्दुस्तान
      After World War II the British were in a hurry to leave India. The elections of winter 1945-46 were thus in fact about the future political shape of an independent subcontinent. Congress sought a mandate to keep India united while the Muslim League stood for a separate Pakistan. Emotive and sensationalist slogans such as‘Pakistan Ka Naara Kaya? La Illaha Il Lillah (What is the Slogan of Pakistan? It is that there is no God but Allah)‘ andमुस्लिम है तो लीग में आ‘Muslim Hai to League Mein Aa’(if you are a Muslim then join the Muslim League) were raised.
      Hindus and Sikhs were demonised as infidels and exploiters. Muslims who opposed the Muslim League were portrayed as renegades to Islam. In some cases fatwas (religious rulings) were issued to the effect that such persons should be denied a proper Islamic burial. On the other hand, support was solicited from Sunnis, Shias, the Ahmadis, Muslim Communists and anyone who was registered in the census records as a Muslim.
      The election results vindicated the contradictory claims of both parties. Congress secured 905 general seats out of 1,585 while the gains of the Muslim League were even more impressive. It won 440 seats out of 495 reserved for Muslims. It is to be noted that Muslims in the Hindu-majority provinces also voted massively in favour of the Muslim League.
      Those now claim to be secular and nationalist Muslims were for the creation of Pakistan and supported Muslim league whole-heartedly. It was referendum of Muslims for the creation of Pakistan.The Muslims who supported creation of Pakistan, later on decided to stay back in India.
      Hindus killed during partition On 29 July 1946, Jinnah gave the call to direct action to Muslims to protest the alleged anti-minority attitude. 0n 16August1946, communal massacres, initiated by hotheads dispatched by the Muslim League chief minister of Bengal, Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, took place in Calcutta, which left thousands of people, mostly Hindus, dead and homeless. The Hindus retaliated with great ferocity. More Muslims died the counterattack. The Calcutta killings proved a contagion, and communal riots broke out in many parts of India. The real explosion, however, originated a few months later in the key Punjab province, where the Muslim (57.1 per cent), Hindu (27.8 per cent) and Sikh (13.2 percent) groups maintained an uneasy peace until the beginning of 1947.

      In the third week of January 1947, the Muslim League started its’ direct-action’ in Punjab against the non-Muslim League government of Khizr Hayat Tiwana. The first large-scale, organised communal clashes took place in the Rawalpindi area. On the night of 6-7 March, Muslim gangs attacked a number of Sikh and Hindu villages, the campaign continuing until 13 March. It left more than 2000 mainly Sikh and Hindu men, women and children dead. Muslim League(It still exist in Secular India and the congress and other so called secular political parties call it a secular political party) cadres were identified as the culprits behind it.
      During World War II the Congress was banned, but the League, which supported the British war effort, was allowed to function and gained strength. It won nearly all of the Muslim vote in the elections of 1946. The following year saw the division of the Indian subcontinent and the Muslim League became the major political party of newly formed Pakistan.

  3. tdchandna says:

    I DONOT AGREE WITH N.JAMAL ANSARI THAT MUSLIM WHO CONTINUE TO STAY IN INDIA DID NOT VOTE FOR PARTITION–ON THE CONTRARY THE MUSLIMS IN NORTH INDIA ESPECIALLY FROM UP AND BIHAR WERE AT THE FOREFRONT IN FAVOUR OF PAKISTAN- IT IS EVIDENT THAT 93 PER CENT MUSLIMS HAD VOTED FOR PAKISTAN BY SUPPORTING MUSLIM LEAGUE -SO THEY CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE BLOT OF DIVISION OF INDIA .1N 1946 ELECTION WHICH WERE MADE THE BASIS OF PARTITION ALL MUSLIM SEATS IN U.P.AND BIHAR WERE WON BY MUSLIM LEAGUE, WHOSE AGENDA WAS THE FORMATION OF PAKISTAN-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s