Musharaf and His wife Drinking

[Night-Hawk]

What Iqbal actually said was

"The principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognising the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore, perfectly justified. The resolution of the All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is, to my mind, wholly inspired by this noble ideal of a harmonious whole which, instead of stifling the respective individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working out the possibilities that may be latent in them. And I have no doubt that this House will emphatically endorse the Muslim demands embodied in this resolution.

Personally, I would go farther than the demands embodied in it. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."

 

[Night-Hawk]

آپ علامہ اقبال کی دور اندیشی اور بصیرت ملاحظہ فرمائیں کہ انہوں نے اپنے خطبے میں بھی نارتھ ویسٹ کا ذکر تو کیا ہے جس میں موجودہ پاکستان کی ریاست شامل ہے لیکن نارتھ ایسٹ یعنی بنگال کے علاقوں کا ذکر نہیں کیا اور اس بنیاد پر نارتھ ویسٹ و نارتھ ایسٹ کی "یونیفائیڈ" ریاست کی بات نہیں کی --- اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ اگر مذہب کی بنیاد پر ایک نئی ریاست بنے گی تو برصغیر کے محل وقوع میں اسکا استحکام زیادہ نارتھ ویسٹ میں ممکن ہو گا نا کہ نارتھ ایسٹ میں​

 

[Jury]

آپ علامہ اقبال کی دور اندیشی اور بصیرت ملاحظہ فرمائیں کہ انہوں نے اپنے خطبے میں بھی نارتھ ویسٹ کا ذکر تو کیا ہے جس میں موجودہ پاکستان کی ریاست شامل ہے لیکن نارتھ ایسٹ یعنی بنگال کے علاقوں کا ذکر نہیں کیا اور اس بنیاد پر نارتھ ویسٹ و نارتھ ایسٹ کی "یونیفائیڈ" ریاست کی بات نہیں کی --- اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ اگر مذہب کی بنیاد پر ایک نئی ریاست بنے گی تو برصغیر کے محل وقوع میں اسکا استحکام زیادہ نارتھ ویسٹ میں ممکن ہو گا نا کہ نارتھ ایسٹ میں​

I do not put forward a “demand” for a Moslem state outside the British Empire.
Allama Iqbal



It's a letter of Allama M Iqbal to the Editor of Daily Times London.



This can be found in the archives of the Times Newspaper and this piece shows what Altaf Hussain said about Allam Iqbal is absolutely right and in this Note Allama Iqbal accepting that he didn't put forward the idea of separate Muslim State in Allahbad.

​

Sir,— Writing in your issue of October 3 last, Dr. E. Thompson has torn the following passage from its context in my presidential address to the All-India Moslem League of last December, in order to serve as evidence of “Pan-Islamic plotting”:

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Moslem State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Moslems, at least of North-West India.

May I tell Dr. Thompson that in this passage I do not put forward a “demand” for a Moslem state outside the British Empire, but only a guess at the possible outcome in the dim future of the mighty forces now shaping the destiny of the Indian sub-continent. No Indian Moslem with any pretence to sanity contemplates a Moslem state or series of States in North-West India outside the British commonwealth of Nations as a plan of practical politics..

Although I would oppose the creation of another cockpit of communal strife in the Central Punjab, as suggested by some enthusiasts, I am all for a redistribution of India into provinces with effective majorities of one community or another on lines advocated both by the Nehru and the Simon Reports. Indeed, my suggestion regarding Moslem provinces merely carries forward this idea. A series of contented and well-organized Moslem provinces on the North-West Frontier of India would be the bulwark of India and of the British Empire against the hungry generations of the Asiatic highlands.

Yours faithfully,
Muhammed Iqbal
St. James’s court, S.W.1, Oct. 10.
​

 

[Night-Hawk]

Mr Jury! I feel pity for your myopia, imprudence & stubbornness which are amazingly hallmarks of your whole mafia -- lock, stock and barrel. I deliberately wrote in Urdu in above passages to elucidate the concept of partition as perceived and discerned by the pioneers of freedom. Where did I say that Iqbal sought for conclusive & unequivocal division of India way back in 1930. Even Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah agreed to the maximum provincial autonomy within dominion of India (with reference to Cabinet Mission Plan). Both Quaid and Iqbal were not in favour of ethnic cleansing and demographic shifts.When creation of Pakistan seemed inevitable, Jinnah even requested the Sikhs to remain within Muslim sphere of influence and not to divide Punjab.

However a unique thing in make up of a thinker & philosopher is his ability to prophesies & prognosticate. He makes his deductions on the basis of logics, reasoning and ground realities. While trailblazing Muslim cause through his poetry and Muslim League leadership, he felt reverberations of renaissance within Muslims of Subcontinent. His foresight compelled him to believe that Muslim state was an ultimate destiny of Muslims of North West whether within or without British Empire. He knew that if such state is not granted by the British, then at some point of time it will become a vehement demand by Indian Muslims. So he came up with a logical solution and may I quote his own words from his above letter to the Editor ;

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Moslem State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Moslems, at least of North-West India.

Then he goes on to add that this "demand" is not his demand but a logical solution to contemporary build-up and for de-novo scenarios in days to come. He knew that for all practical purposes it is in the best interest of Muslims to remain attached with British commonwealth of nations (of which we still are a part). Let me quote him from the above letter ;

May I tell Dr. Thompson that in this passage I do not put forward a “demand” for a Moslem state outside the British Empire, but only a guess at the possible outcome in the dim future of the mighty forces now shaping the destiny of the Indian sub-continent. No Indian Moslem with any pretence to sanity contemplates a Moslem state or series of States in North-West India outside the British commonwealth of Nations as a plan of practical politics..

And then like a skilled lawyer & counsel he comes up with a convincing argument. He opposes communal redistribution as envisaged by Nehru (the same thing was stressed upon by Jinnah during final years of partition), but he hankers for a "well organized" autonomous or semi-autonomous Muslim state based on North West provinces, which in his own words would be front line defence against any invader from the North. Again quoting your posted text ;

Although I would oppose the creation of another cockpit of communal strife in the Central Punjab, as suggested by some enthusiasts, I am all for a redistribution of India into provinces with effective majorities of one community or another on lines advocated both by the Nehru and the Simon Reports. Indeed, my suggestion regarding Moslem provinces merely carries forward this idea. A series of contented and well-organized Moslem provinces on the North-West Frontier of India would be the bulwark of India and of the British Empire against the hungry generations of the Asiatic highlands.

This depicts his tolerance , urge for mutual co-existence with other communities after securing a space guaranteeing Muslim rights. He knew potential insecurities for a minority under British Parliamentary Democracy. Therefore he argued ;

The principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognizing the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore, perfectly justified. The resolution of the All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is, to my mind, wholly inspired by this noble ideal of a harmonious whole which, instead of stifling the respective individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working out the possibilities that may be latent in them. And I have no doubt that this House will emphatically endorse the Muslim demands embodied in this resolution.

This forms the basis of Two Nation Theory within or without the realm of British Empire. The "destiny" emerged from "desire" and became unyielding "demand" afterwards. After Lahore resolution in 1940, the future course was chalked out by British and Hindus themselves. Nehru outrightly rejected Cabinet Mission Plan and forced British to divide India, however both outcomes (within or without Indian dominion) were categorically mentioned in Allahabad address (Dec 1930) and Lahore resolution (March 1940). Though I must say that Jinnah had tilt towards former outcome (as evidenced by Jaswant Singh). But would you please explain your Pir's statement in this context ;

The slogan of two-nation theory was raised to deceive the one hundred million muslims of the subcontinent

Who raised this slogan and for whom in 1940 ? Who used it afterwards to create a new nation state? Muslims of which time-line he is referring to ?

 

[Jury]

1) Till the last, Jinnah tried his level best to get autonomy within India,
but failed due to NEHRU Stubbornness. Obviously, when Jinnah had no choice, Pakistan movement started, like Bengalis did.

2) NWFP was in Congress control, Unionist was in Punjab from 1921 to 1946.
Baluchistan was made province in 1970, otherwise it was under SANDEMAN system on the independence day and made province in 1970. If India didn't introduce LAND REFORM, Muslim League wouldn't get the support in west Pakistan.

3) Bengal is very important, in this debate. You're putting this as an example to prove TWO NATION THEORY. After getting independence from Pakistan, it was not the part of India again, so it means TWO NATION THEORY is true. Even if some part of Pakistan become independent in future, even then TWO NATION THEORY WILL EXIST, till IT NOT JOIN INDIA?
My Question is, why they are not with Pakistan today, if the TWO NATION THEORY still exist.

4) Why didn't all the Religious Scholars on the same boat,
if TWO NATION THEORY was based on Solid Reasons.

4) If TWO NATION THEORY was based on solid reasons.
Why majority Indian Muslims didn't migrated West Pakistan (Current Pakistan) or East Pakistan (Current Bangladesh)?

5) Reason of Pakistan got independence from India and Bangladesh got independence from Pakistan is same. Both wanted there rights.

 

[Night-Hawk]

Before I comment upon your post, let me assume that after failing to categorically reject my arguments in above post you are agreeing to them for the most part.

1) Till the last, Jinnah tried his level best to get autonomy within India,
but failed due to NEHRU Stubbornness. Obviously, when Jinnah had no choice, Pakistan movement started, like Bengalis did.

Jinnah had both options at hand (of within and without India) and yes future course of events were chalked by Nehru. But opponents were opposing the very concept of autonomy. By failing to keep India united, congressmen conceded that Two nation theory was an undeniable fact. So this "blunder" was not to deceive but for the best interest of Muslims of subcontinent. Don't distort facts --- Bengalis wanted autonomy not on the basis of religion but to protect their rights from usurpers who were secular racists. They kept their Muslim identity alive by not uniting with India. I have explained it categorically in my previous posts.

2) NWFP was in Congress control, Unionist was in Punjab from 1921 to 1946.
Baluchistan was made province in 1970, otherwise it was under SANDEMAN system on the independence day and made province in 1970. If India didn't introduce LAND REFORM, Muslim League wouldn't get the support in west Pakistan.

The decision of NWFP was made on the basis of referendum agreed upon by either parties. And majority voted for Pakistan. Punjab's unionist elite jumped into Muslim League bandwagon however its Sikh & Hindu members joined Congress in the final days. Muslim League won all Muslim seats in the elections of 1946. Muslim demand of separate electorate was already accepted by the British government. However the fate of Punjab was its division on communal lines , agreed upon by all and sundry.

In Radcliffe award both parties India and Pakistan agreed on the principle of religious/communal percentage & geographic proximities as factors in chalking out the maps of future states. The status of agencies / princely states (like most of Balochistan and Qalat state) remained unaltered however fate of British Balochistan (including Quetta) was to be decided by Quetta Municipality. The principle of division was to divide into two and not into countless radical and unstable states.

It was not the question of land reforms at the time of partition. Most of the Sikhs were very strong land-lords in West Punjab and conversely many Muslims had their huge expanse of fertile lands in East Punjab before partition. East Punjab had 51 % Muslim population and West Punjab had 65 % Muslim population before partition. But even then those "land-holders" had to relinquish their claims, many on either sides were ruthlessly slaughtered. Punjab's division didn't take into account the strength of land-lords but relative demographic tilts governed the mechanism of partition. This was the basis of Radcliffe award.

Having said that I must admit that most of the Muslim land-lords had inclination towards Muslim League but it was duty of successive regimes both civil and military to impose land-reforms. You cannot shrug your shoulders and question the very fabric and foundations of this nation state. If some people capitalized on the opportunities then this doesn't mean that you start questioning the legitimacy of Pakistan. Ideologies and notions are not bound to be corrupted by the actions of select few individuals. If you start molesting your country then I must not cast doubts on gentlemanliness of your forefathers. It is our duty to clean and reform our country. We as a nation can draw a destiny of our own.

3) Bengal is very important, in this debate. You're putting this as an example to prove TWO NATION THEORY. After getting independence from Pakistan, it was not the part of India again, so it means TWO NATION THEORY is true. Even if some part of Pakistan become independent in future, even then TWO NATION THEORY WILL EXIST, till IT NOT JOIN INDIA?
My Question is, why they are not with Pakistan today, if the TWO NATION THEORY still exist.

Yes I support your initial statement which is a question within itself. Two nation theory means -- two culturally and religiously unique nations within subcontinent to be reckoned with, which are not capable of peaceful mutual co-existence.

Further fragmentation of a Muslim state on the basis of racial and ethnic hatred (perpetrated by secular fascists) is not an all out negation of two nation theory, provided the splinter group doesn't join India. However it is regretted that you are not in habit of reading your opponent's post thoroughly. What I said was that Two nation theory in its essence lasted till 1947 and afterwards it transformed into "Islamic Ideology" which negated racial, linguistic, sectarian and ethnic differences, to keep the country united.

Nonetheless, any deviation from Islamic ideology and tilt towards secularism (which unfortunately also brings racial and ethnic ideology as package) may further divide Islamic nation. However the concept of "two nations" per se, in context of sub-continent will remain intact.

In other words, when in present context we talk of two nation theory then it means two nations of subcontinent --- this doesn't necessarily mean that two nations are geographically bound within two countries or three countries.

4) Why didn't all the Religious Scholars on the same boat,
if TWO NATION THEORY was based on Solid Reasons.

There is always difference of opinion amongst religious scholars ---- they have always divided Muslim Ummah on critical junctures. They were also not on the same boat when Baghdad was sacked & destroyed in 1258. Being an eminent Muslim scholar doesn't necessarily mean that he is an equally eminent statesman or philosopher. However exceptions are always there.

4) If TWO NATION THEORY was based on solid reasons.
Why majority Indian Muslims didn't migrated West Pakistan (Current Pakistan) or East Pakistan (Current Bangladesh)?

Two nation theory was actually envisaged and planned for the Muslim majority regions as I have explained in my previous posts. It was practically not possible to materialize whole scale demographic shifts. The migrations took place due to following reasons;

1- Some were compelled to migrate by Hindus and Sikhs.
2- Some were ideologically convinced.
3- Some thought to have better opportunities in the newly formed state.

As I said Muslim autonomy in North-West was not contemplated for all Indian Muslims. However combined Muslim population of East Pakistan and West Pakistan was more than any country in the world including India. Pakistan was the largest Muslim country at the time of partition. So you are factually wrong.

5) Reason of Pakistan got independence from India and Bangladesh got independence from Pakistan is same. Both wanted there rights.

No Pakistan got independence from India on Islamic slogan while Bangladesh got Independence from Pakistan on ethnic slogan. Issue of rights was more marked in the latter case than the former one. "Rights" cannot be singled out as a common denominator and sole reason in both of these events. Successive military regimes denied democratic rights to Bangali Muslims.

 

[fido82]

سب سے پہلے پاکستان. مشرف زندباد
قدم بھراؤ مشرف پاکستان تمارے ساتھ ہے.

 

[small4780]

These people who posts their comments sometime go into risky territories like accusing Musharraf or his family for drinking. There can be similar pictures of Gunja or Zoredari or even jamatees but they will never give comments. We all know why they accuse Musharraf. Due to his ethnic background. They will never give such comments to Zia or others who were similar. Due to these ethnic partiality they express their hate against MQM and nothing else. These ethnic hatred has destroyed our country to the core. Now, those who profess ethnic hatred are being massacred and killed by their own on the name of Islam thorugh khudkush bombari. These ethnic hatred spilled the bloods of 15,000 innocent people in Karachi during the 90s and how Allah has turned the table and now these people professing ethnic hatred are being elimianted by their own, earth quake and flood but their eyes have not opened. Hosh key nakhun lo aur apni approach change karo warna Pakistan naam ka koi mulk nahi rah jai ga chand salon mein. Munafiqo, munafiqat choro aur sharaft apnaoo warna tabahi key elawa kuch nahi rah jai ga.

 

[Pakistan1992]

he is a drunkin shit