1942: A Rare footage of Hur Freedom Movement in Sindh

[حکایت جنوں]

Were they Sindhi?

But they were sufis and believed in Sufi Silsilas

 

[mrk123]

It is people like Hurs that what Sind has been reduced too, bunch of pir n grave worshippers with no spine

I don't want to get into this discussion of condemning people's beliefs and this whole topic is a long discussion. I respect your beliefs and would expect that you would respect people whose beliefs are different than yours.

Honestly, I really didn't get your comment.

The current form of Piri Mureedi or asstana practice was largely instituted by the British as they used it to their advantage. The current lot of Pirs or sajjada nasheens are a gift to us from the British.

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Were they related to PIr Pagaro, if so than were they created by British? see how the colonial strategy still works in present world little refined plot but still the same old characters

What do u mean by related? They definitely were his devotees and followers and their struggle is well known and was righteous.

In shaping the world narratives and securing and furthering imperialism, Americans even today are not match to the British.

 

[mrk123]

Thanks! I expected the same answer from you. We should support every group of people fighting against the occupation of their land

I will always support people's right to sovereignty no matter what. Though I would caveat that statement by saying that I am totally against intentional targeting of the innocent or non-combatants as that is human decency and also according to the teachings of the Prophet.

 

[mrk123]

What was that all about?

not in the literal sense. Meant as in not accepting their rule over their territory or refusing to be subjugated.

 

[rtabasum2]

Even though I don't want to get into this discussion of condemning people's beliefs and this whole topic is a long discussion. I respect your beliefs and would expect that you would respect people whose beliefs are different than yours.

Honestly, I really didn't get your comment.

The current form of Piri Mureedi or asstana practice was largely instituted by the British as they used it to to advantage. The current lot of Pirs or sajjada nasheens are a gift to us from the British.

Well to begin with the Pir Sibghatullah was fighting to become a ruler of Sind, he even ordered his mureed not to eat meat in order to win over many of his hindu subject as late as 1940's he was against Congress n Muslim League who he thought were communal parties n will effect the unity of Hindus n Muslims.The Hur movement was basically a freedom movement for their Pir or Prince nothing to do with Pakistan

 

[rtabasum2]

Such bolon to Yes;). In fact they are more revolutionary and humanist (and deeply religious in my view:)) than so-called fundamentalists

Sir it was always two competing forces Sufis n Ulemas. When the central Govt was strong Ulema flourished where the central Govt was weak Sufis had the say:)

 

[حکایت جنوں]

I don't think anyone can quote any campaign/struggle for rights wherein no innocent casualties except the struggle of our Prophet (PBUH), that is why there are strict rules which had been defined for all the times to come as the rules of enemy engagement.

But some struggles in history have so much burden of innocent lives on them that the balance of morality/moral verdict is against them. But I dont think Hur struggle was one of them. There may have some isolated instances of innocent causalities but for me it was a genuine struggle for independence of their land.

Have u ever wonder why outside subcontinent, Gandhi is well-known while Quaid MAJ is not despite being a constitutionalist of par excellence standing?

Do you know why Mandela is famous??? But we don't know the names of the leaders of the red Indians who fought for their land.....What an irony. This is the official history towards which you are referring. Gandhi is often accused of doing great damage to Indian freedom movement and giving colonialists the chance to stay in India as long as they wanted. Britishers left India due to the international political situation otherwise Gandhi's non violent movement was enough for Britishers to rule India for another hundred years.

Regarding burden of innocent lives on a freedom movement, I will just add that no freedom movement is free from violence. What about Vietnam war.. Please don't refer to prophetic wars. I am talking about modern freedom movements and colonial era.

 

[حکایت جنوں]

Sir it was always two competing forces Sufis n Ulemas. When the central Govt was strong Ulema flourished where the central Govt was weak Sufis had the say:)

I will suggest and request not to think in binaries. You will create more confusion. What do you think about Ghazzali??? Was he an alim or a sufi?? By the way he was the first man in Islamic history who harmonized Ulama and Sufi discourses and after him, Sufi tradition became part of Ulama tradition and vice versa

 

[dilavar]

I don't think anyone can quote any campaign/struggle for rights wherein no innocent casualties except the struggle of our Prophet (PBUH), that is why there are strict rules which had been defined for all the times to come as the rules of enemy engagement.

But some struggles in history have so much burden of innocent lives on them that the balance of morality/moral verdict is against them. But I dont think Hur struggle was one of them. There may have some isolated instances of innocent causalities but for me it was a genuine struggle for independence of their land.

Have u ever wonder why outside subcontinent, Gandhi is well-known while Quaid MAJ is not despite being a constitutionalist of par excellence standing?

May be I can be a source of enlightenment on this , if you manage to let go of your barber-ic tendencies. Quaid was a pure nationalist leader. Someone focussed on the community and its rights and fighting for them on constitutional grounds. Though Iqbal provided the idealogical compass, its scope was limited and did not have a global audience. Gandhi on the other hand had made a mark during his struggle in South Africa and was an idealoque, visionary and activist all in one. His idealism and the theory of peaceful resistance had a universal appeal especially when Bolsheviks and mensheviks were promising violence against the oligarchs. I think we show our narrow mindedness when we do not accept the greatness of this frail bodied man who was above the worldly desires ( Bhrhamchari at 32 - Many of us don't even get married by then).

 

[rtabasum2]

I will suggest and request not to think in binaries. You will create more confusion. What do you think about Ghazzali??? Was he an alim or a sufi?? By the way he was the first man in Islamic history who harmonized Ulama and Sufi discourses and after him, Sufi tradition became part of Ulama tradition and vice versa

Sir that is the crux of the matter, Wahabism vs rest, Bhutto vs Zia, Islamization of our society is on these binary lines. And that has been a bigger devoid for centuries

 

[rtabasum2]

May be I can be a source of enlightenment on this , if you manage to let go of your barber-ic tendencies. Quaid was a pure nationalist leader. Someone focussed on the community and its rights and fighting for them on constitutional grounds. Though Iqbal provided the idealogical compass, its scope was limited and did not have a global audience. Gandhi on the other hand had made a mark during his struggle in South Africa and was an idealoque, visionary and activist all in one. His idealism and the theory of peaceful resistance had a universal appeal especially when Bolsheviks and mensheviks were promising violence against the oligarchs. I think we show our narrow mindedness when we do not accept the greatness of this frail bodied man who was above the worldly desires ( Bhrhamchari at 32 - Many of us don't even get married by then).

U forgot Sarhadhi Gandhi Khan Bacha Khan?

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

Do you know why Mandela is famous??? But we don't know the names of the leaders of the red Indians who fought for their land.....What an irony. This is the official history towards which you are referring. Gandhi is often accused of doing great damage to Indian freedom movement and giving colonialists the chance to stay in India as long as they wanted. Britishers left India due to the international political situation otherwise Gandhi's non violent movement was enough for Britishers to rule India for another hundred years.

Regarding burden of innocent lives on a freedom movement, I will just add that no freedom movement is free from violence. What about Vietnam war.. Please don't refer to prophetic wars. I am talking about modern freedom movements and colonial era.

When u go into details/nitty gritty, there are too many factors to be taken account of. It is a compulsion of history....and for that matter, of popular history......that many unsung heroes remain unsung. (Briefly, there are factors of nearness, connectedness/connectivity, imperialism's own efforts to put a make up on its face which u call official history. By project Mandela they were doing some face savings for the good of their own culture, heritage and conscience).

It is a bit strange to see a sufi/pacifist to take a such a hostile stance and berating Gandhi for his non--violence preference.....;)

Accusation on Gandhi to great extent is the flip side of the acceptance of his argument.message like there is for every social phenomenon. However, personally I am neutral in this regard. I am not a typical GHQ trained paki who would find every fault with regard to Pak movement in Gandhi.....;)

Regarding innocent causalities, yeah I agree with the that it is unavoidable 'collateral damage'. Does the term sounds familiar? We only have issue with this term when it is used and interpreted by the opponents..........;)

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

May be I can be a source of enlightenment on this , if you manage to let go of your barber-ic tendencies. Quaid was a pure nationalist leader. Someone focussed on the community and its rights and fighting for them on constitutional grounds. Though Iqbal provided the idealogical compass, its scope was limited and did not have a global audience. Gandhi on the other hand had made a mark during his struggle in South Africa and was an idealoque, visionary and activist all in one. His idealism and the theory of peaceful resistance had a universal appeal especially when Bolsheviks and mensheviks were promising violence against the oligarchs. I think we show our narrow mindedness when we do not accept the greatness of this frail bodied man who was above the worldly desires ( Bhrhamchari at 32 - Many of us don't even get married by then).

Drop that fake cloak of superiority/superiority complex!

Why cant u just keep urself on track? Must u go astray every now and then? If this is something idiosyncratic in you, then at least u can spare from ur idiosycracies.

You shine when u put ur intellect to use. I want to see and appreciate that side of u..........

Iqbal did not have a global audience/appeal because of a number of factors. His language and identity, being a subject of imperialism, thus, to be consider belong to a backward civilization and inferior, so on and so forth........ Otherwise I don't see reason why he should not be considered an exceptional intellect.

Regarding Gandhi, my point was about him claiming moral high ground due to his philosophy.

Frankly, there was no visionary among all the protagonist of subcontinent's freedom movement except perhaps Iqbal and Azad. Their claims to being visionary, if any was slaughtered on the line of division of Punjab!

 

[حکایت جنوں]

When u go into details/nitty gritty, there are too many factors to be taken account of. It is a compulsion of history....and for that matter, of popular history......that many unsung heroes remain unsung. (Briefly, there are factors of nearness, connectedness/connectivity, imperialism's own efforts to put a make up on its face which u call official history. By project Mandela they were doing some face savings for the good of their own culture, heritage and conscience).

It is a bit strange to see a sufi/pacifist to take a such a hostile stance and berating Gandhi for his non--violence preference....
Please see above. I gave many examples of Sufis fighting for their land. It is an orientalist argument that Sufis are peace-loving good for nothing guys and the real enemy is Ulama. There are of course their own reasons to create such a binary in Muslims which time time does not allow me to explain but I hope you know what I mean
Accusation on Gandhi to great extent is the flip side of the acceptance of his argument.message like there is for every social phenomenon. However, personally I am neutral in this regard. I am not a typical GHQ trained paki who would find every fault with regard to Pak movement in Gandhi.....;)
​Sir g this is the standard Marxist interpretation. Sometimes, the magic of "official histories" blinds us from appreciating the difference between two arguments(serious)
Regarding innocent causalities, yeah I agree with the that it is unavoidable 'collateral damage'. Does the term sounds familiar? We only have issue with this term when it is used and interpreted by the opponents..........;)
Sir g ki kr raye o???? People fighting for their land does not come under this category. Are you equating imperialism/neo-colonialism's unethical and inhuman war with the native's struggle for their own land and resources.:lol:

In red......................

 

[mrk123]

Well to begin with the Pir Sibghatullah was fighting to become a ruler of Sind, he even ordered his mureed not to eat meat in order to win over many of his hindu subject as late as 1940's he was against Congress n Muslim League who he thought were communal parties n will effect the unity of Hindus n Muslims.The Hur movement was basically a freedom movement for their Pir or Prince nothing to do with Pakistan

You have to broaden your horizon here :-)

I am being lazy and just quoting the most authentic of sources, wikipedia :-) But it gives you some basic facts. Hurs struggle against the British predates Muslim League or Congress or struggle for independent Pakistan. I am not sure why are you trying to put the guy in such a negative light. I am sure he must be doing something right for the goras to feel threatened and to hang him. Anyone fighting against the British rule is a hero to me even if his vision was just focused on freeing a small area and people living there.

By the way I am not sure where are you getting the idea of him trying to become a ruler of all of sindh, some british sources maybe?

Freedom Struggle[edit]

According to Lutaf Mangrio and Nadeem Wagan, "The Hur movement began with Sibghtullah Shah Badshah I [1831-1779] and reached its peak in days Sibghtullah Shah Shaheed Suraih Badshah, when the Hurs became active against their British rulers who imprisoned many in Vasarpur district Ahmed Nangar".[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
Sibghatullah Shah 1 provided forces to Syed Ahmed Shaheed to fight against Sikhs and since then these people have been called "Hurs" [free people] The freedom struggle started by Syed Sibghtullah Shah Shaheed Awal in 1246 [Hijri].
Pagaras' and their followers fought against their British rulers for 108 years, from 1843 to 1951.

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

In red......................
Please see above. I gave many examples of Sufis fighting for their land. It is an orientalist argument that Sufis are peace-loving good for nothing guys and the real enemy is Ulama. There are of course their own reasons to create such a binary in Muslims which time time does not allow me to explain but I hope you know what I mean
Accusation on Gandhi to great extent is the flip side of the acceptance of his argument.message like there is for every social phenomenon. However, personally I am neutral in this regard. I am not a typical GHQ trained paki who would find every fault with regard to Pak movement in Gandhi.....;)
​Sir g this is the standard Marxist interpretation. Sometimes, the magic of "official histories" blinds us from appreciating the difference between two arguments(serious)
Regarding innocent causalities, yeah I agree with the that it is unavoidable 'collateral damage'. Does the term sounds familiar? We only have issue with this term when it is used and interpreted by the opponents..........;)
Sir g ki kr raye o???? People fighting for their land does not come under this category. Are you equating imperialism/neo-colonialism's unethical and inhuman war with the native's struggle for their own land and resources.:lol:

Do u think a person like me would believe orientalist BS? Of course when it come to securing ur land, it is the love of the land that overrules and overruns all other considerations, especially when u r fighting occupants who came from far off lands.

Which two arguments? Lost u here....

In the last point (collateral damage) I was again referring to their ability and power/capacity to shape narrative for us. Why we r discussing this in the first place? because of their agenda setting and ability i referred to. There should be no need to discuss that. Instead we try ti shape our counter narrative rooted in our Deen, not in so-called human right charter. Mahatir was dead right about jews in this regard.

 

[حکایت جنوں]

Drop that fake cloak of superiority/superiority complex!

Why cant u just keep urself on track? Must u go astray every now and then? If this is something idiosyncratic in you, then at least u can spare from ur idiosycracies.

You shine when u put ur intellect to use. I want to see and appreciate that side of u..........

Iqbal did not have a global audience/appeal because of a number of factors. His language and identity, being a subject of imperialism, thus, to be consider belong to a backward civilization and inferior, so on and so forth........ Otherwise I don't see reason why he should not be considered an exceptional intellect.

Regarding Gandhi, my point was about him claiming moral high ground due to his philosophy.

Frankly, there was no visionary among all the protagonist of subcontinent's freedom movement except perhaps Iqbal and Azad. Their claims to being visionary, if any was slaughtered on the line of division of Punjab!

For God' sake please stop. A politician like Azad was a visionary for you who couldn't even sense the partition and the mood of Muslim middle classes and who advised Nehru of a useless Muslim masses contact movement and . Why couldn't such a visionary understand that ignoring Muslim leaders outside Congress and contacting Muslim masses directly would be a great mistake

 

[حکایت جنوں]

Do u think a person like me would believe orientalist BS? Of course when it come to securing ur land, it is the love of the land that overrules and overruns all other considerations, especially when u r fighting occupants who came from far off lands.

Which two arguments? Lost u here....

In the last point (collateral damage) I was again referring to their ability and power/capacity to shape narrative for us. Why we r discussing this in the first place? because of their agenda setting and ability i referred to. There should be no need to discuss that. Instead we try ti shape our counter narrative rooted in our Deen, not in so-called human right charter. Mahatir was dead right about jews in this regard.

Sir g bas aik baat arz kroon ga

Deen mein tabdeeli nahi aati magar ilm mein taraqqi hoti rehti hai aur us ke saath saath chalna chahiey

 

[ZenoInTheZoo]

For God' sake please stop. A politician like Azad was a visionary for you who couldn't even sense the partition and the mood of Muslim middle classes and who advised Nehru of a useless Muslim masses contact movement and . Why couldn't such a visionary understand that ignoring Muslim leaders outside Congress and contacting Muslim masses directly would be a great mistake

How did I skip addition of words 'to some extent' in reference to them?

Well.....that is my opinion and I have some argument to support it. But u have all the rights to disagree with that.

If u want to discuss it, we can whenever it is mutually convenient.

To my mind his vision and understand of muslim masses was rooted in deeper ground compared to the understanding of the rest. It was local psyche and human psyche combined. Muslim masses were swayed by the religious based rhetoric. He was seeing perhaps 30-50 years ahead.