The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri’s Maulana Azad Hoax

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Some people believe that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Making the rounds on the internet these days is a “suddenly discovered” interview of Maulana Azad which he allegedly gave to Agha Shorish Kashmiri of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam in April 1946.

Well I hate to break it to all of you – Agha Shorish Kashmiri was a fraud and the interview itself was most probably cobbled together through excerpts from Azad’s book “India Wins Freedom” and his famous address to the Muslims left behind in India in Jamia Masjid- both easily available texts. Before I come to the actual nature of the forgery, let us re-cap for a second what this creature Majlis-e-Ahrar was and just how deep its motivation ran in discrediting Pakistan and the leadership of Mr. Jinnah who Majlis-e-Ahrar considered an outright Kafir. Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a group of Islamic fanatics closely allied to the Congress party, was one of the most rabid anti-Pakistan movements around.

Their leaders Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar and Maulana Ataullah Shah Bukhari were foul mouthed bigots who resorted to choicest abuses from the pulpit against the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah. The elections of 1946 resulted in their complete rout and after Pakistan was created, this group was in the forefront of the conspiracies against the state. Agha Shorish Kashmiri was one such Ahrari remnant who was in the forefront of anti-Ahmaddiya rioting in Pakistan and whose hatred for Pakistan was boundless. The internal struggle in Islam has always pitted liberal Muslim leadership against the clergy especially in the subcontinent. The difference in the closing days of the Raj was that through a freak chance, liberal and secular Muslim leadership in form of Jinnah was isolated from the Hindu leadership i.e. Gandhi and Nehru led Congress which in turn used the fanatical Muslims making common cause with them against British raj.

Maulana Azad was the blue-eyed boy of the Ulema who opposed the Muslim League. Azad was a religious scholar of renown, a salafi who followed Ibn-e-Taimiyya. He commanded respect amongst the Ahraris and he was admired by the nationalists. That Azad was a smart politician is evidenced from his support for the Cabinet Mission Plan, where he alone in the Congress was ready to work it to its logical conclusion. He was also an intelligent man who did predict the separation of Pakistan’s Eastern Wing in his book “India Wins Freedom” as dictated to Humayun Kabir in 1957. He did not however make the predictions that are being attributed to him in the so called interview.

Now let us see the obvious gaping holes in this so called interview:

 1. First of all the interview finds no mention in any of the official works on Azad. It is only found in Agha Shorish Kashmiri’s book on Abul Kalam Azad which was financed and published by Kashmiri himself.

 2. Azad says “H S Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in esteem”. Jinnah’s relationship with Suhrawardy soured in late 1947 but in April 1946 there were no such signs. Till 1947, Suhrawardy was tipped to be Pakistan’s firs t Prime Minister. Infact in his book “India Wins Freedom” Azad hints that Jinnah sidelined Nazimuddin because Nazimuddin was not the loyalist others (presumably Suhrawardy) were.

3. Azad is quoted as saying that “East Pakistan’s confidence will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan are alive”. This is a rather odd statement on three counts. One in April 1946 no one used the term “East Pakistan”, secondly Liaqat Ali Khan just did not enjoy the kind of importance that is being attached to him and third that while Jinnah was ageing and was expected to die sooner or later, Liaqat Ali Khan was relatively young, and certainly younger than Azad. This sounds eerily similar to something our established Pakistan Studies’ books would say about Quaid-e-Azam and Quaid-e-Millat.

4. Azad is shown to speak about the “assertion of the subnational identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and – please note- Balochistan”. There was no Balochistan issue till the annexation of Kalat. Balochistan did not exist as a proper province, let alone register as a possible hotbed in April 1946. All of Baloch grievances revolve around the purported events of March 1948 and the annexation in 1956. There is no way Azad could have spoken about Balochistan in April 1946.

5. Then Azad is quoted as saying “incompetent leadership will pave way for military dictatorship as has happened in many Muslim countries”. Till April 1946, there were no known coups in Muslim countries. Perhaps Azad was referring to Turkey but then Turkey was not a military dictatorship as Ataturk had retired from the military and was the elected – though autocratic – president of Turkey. His prime ministers, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayer, had followed suit.

6. Azad then looks into his crystal ball and speaks of “heavy burden of foreign debt”. Foreign debt was an unknown and unlikely creature in Pakistan till the 1960s when Pakistan financed the building of a new capital. In April 1946, there were no apprehensions of foreign debt. Pakistan no doubt asked for military aid from the US soon after independence but that was hardly debt. Unless ofcourse Azad knew that the Congress planned on withholding Pakistan’s share of the treasury- another unlikely proposition since in April 1946 it wasn’t even clear that there would be a partition (except maybe in the note sent from V P Menon to George Abell on January 23rd 1946 which demarcated Pakistan exactly and precisely).

7. Azad is lavish in his praise of Jinnah as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, something he misses out completely in his book “India Wins Freedom”. Other than this purported interview Azad has never acknowledged Jinnah’s contributions to the Congress. It was just not Azad’s style. The description itself seems to follow the passages on Jinnah by Dr. B R Ambedkar’s “Pakistan or Partition of India”. Granted that this book was in circulation at the time but my bet will be that it was Kashmiri and not Azad who read it.

 8. Azad then goes on to say “In the battle of Jamal, Qurans were displayed on the lances”. How strange and ironic that a learned Islamic scholar and authority would make such a major error? It was Jang-e-Sifin – between Muawiyah and Ali- where the Qurans were displayed on the lances.  I for one cannot believe that  Maulana Azad would say something like that given that this was his bread and butter.   Had this been suggested about Jinnah or even Nehru or Iqbal it would have been believable but certainly not Azad.

My objective in posting this is to counter the lie and propaganda that Ahrari crook Agha Shorish Kashmiri is carrying out posthumously with the help of those who want to see Pakistan disintegrated. That this was translated by an Indian MP and published in a magazine that calls itself “Covert” only adds to the mystique of it, since the timing couldn’t be better. But as they say in Punjabi/Saraiki “Naqal kan aqal chaidee”. The planners and executors of this third rate attempt at forging this interview and enhancing Maulana Azad’s credentials as India’s Nostradamus have done the ex-Congress president a disservice.

On our part it is time we stopped being impressed with such trickery.


Filed under History

102 responses to “The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri’s Maulana Azad Hoax

  1. yasserlatifhamdani

    Thanks to PTH, a million other sites have posted Crookish Kashmiri’s forgery as the gospel truth.

  2. gv


    good effort!

  3. Hossp

    Timely Article!
    I did not read the interview at PTH, just looked at the title. This morning I got couple of chain emails of the interview and I sent terse responses.

    One Shorash Kashmiri, I have heard about was the editor of a weekly rag “Chattan” and was known as a blackmailer. I did not know he was of Majlis e ahrar. Creating fake interview would not be beyond that black mailer.
    I have never had a high opinion of Azad. He was a run of the mill maulvi and perhaps his claim to fame is his association with Congress. I have heard he wrote excellent Urdu but knowing one language well does not make a person a great politician. I read his book a long time ago but did not find anything worth taking note of.

    People like Azad and many from the Congress talked big after the division but one has to ask them why did they fail to prevent it when there was still time. They blame Jinnah and the Brits and then both for engineering the partition but really what was congress’s role in preventing it, has no answer. Congress had every opportunity to derail any talk of partition but the congress supported media promoted the Pakistan idea by terming the 1940 resolution as Pakistan resolution and then rejected every attempt including the last one with CMP and finally agreed to the partition with the stipulation that Punjab and Bengal should also be partitioned. If they wanted a united India desperately enough, they could have agreed to any political solution that would have kept India united but they did not. Azad can write big stories but if he were so much against the partition, why he did not resign from the party after Nehru and Patel agreed to it.

    In 1971 the Pakistan army had every chance of keeping Pakistan together. Accepting the six points and agreeing to accept Awami league as the largest party would have saved Pakistan and prevented the bloodshed. There is another interesting fact: within a year of taking power Mujib assumed dictatorial powers that led to his unpopularity and finally overthrow. I am sure if the Pakistan army had allowed him to lead Pakistan; he would have shown his tendencies to assume dictatorial powers in Pakistan too. Clearly he too was not a democrat at heart. But Pakistan army was not ready to risk anything and did not want to leave anything to chance so the army decided to break up Pakistan instead of sharing power with the Awami League.

    Now rollback to 1946-47, if the congress wanted to prevent the partition, the best course would have been to accept any formula that would have kept India united, zones or no zones. Jinnah was going to die or would have made some mistake later on. Muslim League was popular only in central India. It has cobbled together some alliances in Bengal, Punjab and Sindh. I am sure those alliances would have collapses with Jinnah (as they later did). The congress had a great chance to come to agreements with many groups within the Muslim alliance and within a couple of years; congress had every chance to dismantle the zones formula.

    I hope people can see the similarities in both situations. In 1947 the congress was not interested in sharing power with the Muslim league or Jinnah or the Muslims at large, at any cost and for any period, no matter how short that period was going to be. So they opted for accepting partition when they had every chance to accept CMP or any other formula. Congress did not even present a counter plan while rejecting the CMP.

    Pakistan army too never wanted to share power with the Awami League, Mujib or the Bengalis. They never countered the Six points with any plan of their own and instead opted for the bloodshed to avoid sharing powers. The congress’s idea for the partition of Punjab and Bengal caused bloodshed in India. Similar to the decision the Pak army took when it decided to break up Pakistan. Spilling blood, instead of saving the country, was common to both the Congress and the Pak army’s decisions. Congress never tried to save a united India. Ruling a divided India by itself probably was more attractive to the Congress.
    Just some thoughts….

  4. Hossp

    “I am sure those alliances would have collapses with Jinnah (as they later did).”

    I am sure those alliances would have collapsed without Jinnah (as they later did).

  5. yasserlatifhamdani


    That is a very precise analysis.

    “am sure those alliances would have collapses with Jinnah (as they later did). The congress had a great chance to come to agreements with many groups within the Muslim alliance and within a couple of years; congress had every chance to dismantle the zones formula.”

    The CMP created an extraodinary opportunity for the Congress to convince people of its sincerity. Ofcourse that is where the real insecurity lay… Congress’ right wing with Hindu Mahasabha at its back was too powerful for the middle of the road Indian nationalists and liberals like Nehru etc to reach out to the Muslims, especially in the face of a formidable threat of an All India Muslim League which would be in government in upto 6 provinces …and the main opposition party in the central legislature. In a way this – and not the de-centralized nature of the CMP- is the real Congress rationale for partition of 1947.

    “Congress did not even present a counter plan while rejecting the CMP.”

    Even as late as Mountbatten’s viceroyalty, Jinnah gave alternatives…. one of which was for a transfer of power to provinces who would then form groups and centers …. which would then coordinate with each other to work out matters of common interest.

    I think H V Hodson’s very fair book tells us of the opportunities lost… as well huge blunders by South Asian leaders… (the inability to apply the two nation theory principle to the princely states was a failing of both Nehru and Jinnah equally… both were out to one up the other… and in the process cost the subcontinent dearly).

  6. Junaid

    Good one.

    Many a great minds have fallen to this forgery including Raza rumi

  7. Majumdar


    Maybe the INC did not want to keep the subcontinent united. There is enuff reason to suspect that by 1946 (if not even earlier) many influential INC leaders- Patel and Rajaji most prominent among them- were determined to part ways.

    ……the inability to apply the two nation theory principle to the princely states was a failing of both Nehru and Jinnah equally….

    Whatever you are, you are not an unfair man or a closed mind. Looks like Hayyer and my arguments have made a difference.


  8. @Yasser
    brilliant work….I agree to all the points raised by U, and I think no one on the whole web space has analyzed it as U have done it…..
    And Keeping the grace of Azaad, a man of integrity, though the words used for Shaurish dont suit U as mixing such words with an intellectual piece didnt add value to it…..

  9. yasserlatifhamdani




    Well to the extent that Jinnah’s championing of Hyderabad’s case for independence was at best amoral….and at worst simply indefensible … certainly it did not gel with Mr. Jinnah’s own political philosophy. (This is not to say that Hyderabad did not have a right to independence but for that the Nizam should have established a popular government and transformed Hyderabad into a constitutional monarchy…)

    However I read through the proceedings of November 1st summit last night … and I am afraid the version which has been fed to us is not keeping with the facts. Jinnah did not reject plebiscite as is alleged. He actually suggested a plebsicite under aegis of the two governor generals jointly as opposed to a plebiscite under Shaikh Abdullah’s administration and with Indian troops.

    I intend to write a complete account of the origins of Kashmir conflict… which will show just how big of a blindspot and a blot it is on Nehru… Nehru’s actions in Kashmir were more than amoral… those actions were immoral outright and were even more contradictory to his own political philosophy than Hyderabad was to Jinnah.

  10. Majumdar

    There is no question that JLN was absolutely wrong on Kashmir and in fact I believe that had it not been for JLN, India may never have intervened in Kashmir- (Kashmir being JLN’s homeland and thus of special importance)


  11. mohammad

    It is hilarious a commoner comes to know about the so called personalities of the days by gone only through net, anyway we should let them rest in the attics of dusty history books.

  12. vajra


    On the contrary, I think that having coming to a formula, the effort should have been to apply it stringently and fairly, and not allow any weakening of the formula for a fleeting gain here and a fleeting gain there.

    I think there is nothing to be gained beyond the conclusions that were earlier reached, and any refinement which places YLH and BC in the ranks of the conventional knee-jerk Pakistanis, or places Majumdar (unlikely) or others in the ranks of the conventional knee-jerk Indians is a retrograde step.

    Once again, Yasser, I urge you very very seriously, get a copy of and read La Trahison de Clercs. While we all know why he wrote it, it applies to South Asian dialogue like nothing does and nothing ever will.

  13. vajra


    I forgot; I was going to write to you about your analysis. One of the best I have read, and should be required reading before anyone gets down to studying this period, although it has wide applicability for other periods as well. The mistake that you have mentioned, of Hindus picking overtly religious Muslims for their natural counterparts for a dialogue, even for a partnership, is deeply engrained. Recently in off-list discussion, it emerged that one of us was precisely guilty of this kind of thinking, totally unconscious (stupidly so, it has to be admitted) of the colouring it would give his entire discourse to follow.

    Put in other words, there is a section of liberal Hindu opinion that expects Hindu opinion to be liberal and secular (as in Western secular) by default, and expects Muslim opinion to be religious and parochial by default. It is the by default clause, the total lack of awareness of this hidden bias, that is a killer.

    Superb job done.

  14. Majumdar

    Err, a small clarification. I was under the impression that Aghas were all Shi’ites/Ismailis of Iranian origin (I understand they are all held in hi esteem in Pak). So how come this dude ended up with the Ahrars?


  15. @YLH

    Very well-done analysis!

    Some of the arguments cited by the faked interview, those of Muslims unity/integrity etc etc and their citations used to oppose the creation of Pakistan, are quite similar in nature to those cited by the right-wing notables like Moudoudi. This was indeed an attempt to dispute Jinnah’s credibility and fail his efforts for Pakistan.

    Nevertheless, some of the arguments cited, even when faked, do make sense. For example the one saying that if indeed Islam’s name was used or a nation intended at allowing religious liberty to Muslims was what ML had in mind, it pretty much failed at it when leaving a far greater population of faith-fellas in Indian territory.

    Likewise, apart from Jinnah and few other front-liners, the sincerity of other leading figures of Pakistan movement can be put to question, considering their performance after the establishment of Pakistan. There’s this oft-cited quote of Jinnah’s when he expressed grief at having all fake coins with him after he succeeded in gaining Pakistan’s freedom.

  16. yasserlatifhamdani




    Reading the Munir Report I was shocked to discover that Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar- the Mullah-in-chief of Ahrar – was a Shia Muslim… who nonetheless fought for the “Madh-e-Sahaba”.

    I am not sure what Kashmiri’s original sectarian affiliation was…. but I have long been aware of a special breed of Shia Muslims who are referred to as Shia-Wahabis. It is a state of mind… cannot be explained… after Khomeni was a major Shia as well… and Sunni crazies like Maududi and Kalim Siddiqui gathered around him…. and the latest such crazy – Yvonne Ridley- is very close to the Mullah regime of Iran.

    I myself recently came across a certain Agha Murtaza Poya on a TV Show I was on as a guest. Throughout the show, I was under the impression that he was a Maududian and I kept attacking him on that pretext. It turned out that he is a Shia Alim of same fame.

    Political fundamentalist Islam itself is non-sectarian to the extent of mainstream Sunni and Shia Islams. They tend to be exclusivist to Ismaili, Bohri and Ahmadi sects which they consider to be outside the fold of Islam.

    Aghas to my knowledge cannot be Ismaili… because Ismaili Islamic faith has one Aga … the Aga Khan. But you are correct that they are Shias.

  17. yasserlatifhamdani


    “there is a section of liberal Hindu opinion that expects Hindu opinion to be liberal and secular (as in Western secular) by default, and expects Muslim opinion to be religious and parochial by default. It is the by default clause, the total lack of awareness of this hidden bias, that is a killer.”

    It is not just the Hindus. President Barack Obama when he gave that “Ramadan address” was guilty of the same. According to Obama all Muslims are Sunnis and go for Traveeh prayers… or even that all Muslims pray … or fast … or …..

  18. gv


    ismailis are aga khanis

    twelver shia-ism (mainstream shias) consider the imamate terminated after the twelvth imam following the patrilineal line through the Imam Musa Kazim, the elder(st) son of Imam Jafar. the final and twelvth imam – imam mohd mahdi went into hiding and will return with jesus to bring salvation etc etc.

    Ismaili’s follow a different line of descent from Imam Jafar Sadiq (the conventional sixth imam) for both sects via his younger son, Imam Ismail onwards to the current imam being the Aga Khan

    Incidentally Khojas were ismailis who experienced a further split into ismaili khojas and itnashari khojas (who reverted to twelver shiism)

  19. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear gv,

    I am not sure what it is that I said different. All I am saying is that the name Agha is not common amongst Ismailis because there is one Aga Khan- I might be wrong about this.

    Agha is generally an Ithna Ashari Shia name. However I am not sure what sect Agha Shorish was from.

    Incidentally…. Ismailis and Aga Khanis though used interchangeably doesn’t give the full picture. Aga Khanis are a sub-sect of the Ismaili faith…. other branches are Bohri and possibly the Turkish and Syrian Alavis. It may also be argued that Druze are a breakaway sect of the Ismailis. Bohris themselves are divided in to Bohras and progressive Dawoodi Bohras – the most famous amongst the latter is Asghar Ali Engineer.

    As for Khoja Shia Mohammadens… yes they are of two kinds seveners and twelvers. Jinnah was born a sevener but became a twelver after his sister Mariam Peerbhoy married a non-Ismaili and Aga Khan refused to bless the marriage.

    What sets Khoja Shias from other Shias is that Khojas use Hindu Family Law of Inheritance… which what Jinnah’s property was subject to.

  20. gv

    sorry i misunderstood i thought you said that agha khanis cant be ismaili..

    from my understanding – agha is a title like mirza, mir, beg etc

    so i suppose anyone really could be an agha… darri speakers use it as we use sahib.

  21. yasserlatifhamdani


    I was a bit disappointed ofcourse to read this bit because it shows how easily we fall prey to popular myths:

    “it pretty much failed at it when leaving a far greater population of faith-fellas in Indian territory. ”

    First of all… Pakistan was not about practice of religion but was about economic and political space and sovereignty. There is no “theory of Pakistan”. Pakistan was the result of an inability of Congress and the League to come to a power sharing agreement.

    Secondly… Pakistan’s current population according to the Census is 167 million … out of which 160 million atleast are Muslims.
    According to Indian census 2001 there were 138 million Muslims in India. Taking the highest growth rate – Indian Muslims come to about 157 million. The real number may be aroun 150 million but even if we assume the highest number, Pakistan has a slightly larger Muslim population.

    But this is not all… in 1947, Pakistan with its two wings had 65% + Muslims of the subcontinent. This is roughly the case today as well… if you consider 160 million + Muslims of Pakistan and 115 million or so in Bangladesh. The number comes up to 275 million… to India’s highest estimate… i.e. 157 million.

    The argument is entirely concocted…. because Muslim League’s politics had nothing to do with any apprehensions of religious oppression. The whole demand was significantly different and needs to be re-imagined with the knowledge we have now of the tactical game play – forwards and backwards – of both parties.

  22. Bloody Civilian


    Put in other words, there is a section of liberal Hindu opinion that expects Hindu opinion to be liberal and secular (as in Western secular) by default, and expects Muslim opinion to be religious and parochial by default. It is the by default clause, the total lack of awareness of this hidden bias, that is a killer.

    young scholars of comparative religion are told to compare ideal with ideal and real with real. perhaps, when comparing ‘nations’, one should compare liberal with liberal, sane with sane, and crazies with crazies. but it’s natural that we try to look for the ‘average pakistani’ or the ‘average indian’, even though it’s stereotyping using another word.

    some of course think that things like GDP etc are better ways to compare, ie they are better indicators of the ‘quality’ of the ‘average citizen’. until we bring in the comparison between democracy and dictatorship, where dictators, by defintion, are a minority. but then people start citing propensity towards dictatorship as a comparative test. it never ends.

  23. vajra

    @Bloody Civilian

    You didn’t get it, or maybe you are just being nice to an older man.

    What you saw exhibited was obtuse behaviour, which should have been apparent as being obtuse and indefensible, but which did not become apparent for many long years. No other review of methodology, or changes in the criteria for comparison were needed; simply an understanding that an apple and a duodenal ulcer are not comparable objects.

    You should just accept an abject apology, an assurance of future good behaviour, appropriate probationary conditions and a bond signed by a worthy of the neighbourhood, and let the matter pass.

    It is apparent to me, and to most other members of the ‘faction of goodwill’, if a small religion-oriented pun may be permitted, that there is no such thing as an average Pakistani; instead, there are distinct individuals, ranging in their behaviour right through the entire available spectrum from very good to very bad – funnily enough, just like us.

    Although, being members of the Indus civilisation, you aren’t really like us; that extra rib gives you away.

  24. Milind Kher


    I went through your analysis of the interview and agree with you totally. It does appear rather concocted.

    However, if in the past, people have not hesitated to concoct ahadith, concocting an interview is not a big deal.

    However, a very disturbing discovery is how deep Ibne Taimiya’s nihilistic philosophy has penetrated. Unless the stranglehold is broken, it will spell trouble.

  25. yasserlatifhamdani

    Indeed… one would say it is part of the Islamic tradition to concoct stuff… at will.

    This fellow Agha Shorish Kashmiri is well known to the people of Lahore. I unfortunately no longer have access to the Lahori bank of oral history that my late father was… otherwise I would have recounted some other fundamental truths about this crook Shorish Kashmiri and his role against Pakistani minorities.

  26. YLH,
    Sorry for my wrong facts. I had indeed a grossly wrong statistical idea. However, even when considering the fact that Pakistan accomodated 65% of the Muslims of the sub-continent, the premise of League’s battle, if it was Islam indeed, was poorly looked to a fine conclusion with a large number left at the Indian side of the border.

    And well…I cited in another of your posts that at least in the NWFP region, among the Pashtuns, Islam was to be used as a rallying point. Was it not the same at Punjab and hence the ever-raging debate of whether or not Jinnah’s Pakistan was to be a theocracy?Even when with a political flavor, was not the baseline still a conflict of Muslim interests against Hindu interests where Congress was accused of guarding the latter and hence League came into the field to defend the former, eventually winning out Pakistan? I may be wrong upon those conclusions, considering my limited knowledge of history. In that case, I’d want you to point out the mistakes and correct them. :)

  27. hossp

    I wonder why PTH gives so much space to dead issues like this one. There are so many things going on that have a direct effect on Pakistan’s future.Let’s get real and concentrate more on the current and live issues rather than the dead and old issues of yester years.

  28. yasserlatifhamdani


    I think the issue here is that you are constantly looking for justification for existence of a nation state when there is no need to.

    The creation of Pakistan- just like any other modern nation state- was an accident of history… that accident being that Muslim League and Congress could not come to an arrangement on the power sharing deal. Muslim League did represent the Muslim minority and it did so with great vigor but the aim and objective of the Pakistan movement was to get Muslims a share in effective power in the subcontinent (which Pakistan provides).

    Your reference to political sloganeering by the League in NWFP … or in Punjab (where you might be surprised to learn that Communist Party of India designed and reinforced Muslim League’s campaign) should therefore be seen as politics… yes .. League appealed to Islam in NWFP and to some extent in Punjab and was League alone in it? Unionists were using all sorts of unsavory Islamist characters and so were the members of the Congress Party…. after all who funded, supported and promoted Majlis-e-Ahrar – one of the worst Islamist groups in the subcontinent. It was the Congress. What does that mean for Congress? When in the Frontier KK spread pamphlets proclaiming that Jinnah didn’t know how to pray… did that mean they were fighting for Islam? When the Frontier Congress gave material and moral support to Fakir of Ipi’s Islamist revolt against Pakistan… did that mean that Congress wanted to establish an Emirate in Waziristan?

    The Muslim League consisted of westernized Muslims… and the whole issue was -as Wilfred Cantwell Smith said- of Muslim bourgeoisie marking out an economic and political turf for itself. Hamza Alavi’s “Salariat” theory confirms it.
    While Smith saw this as a negative thing, a keener student of history would see this as a positive in terms of political evolution. Let me ask you this… had there been no Pakistan would there be a University of Engineering at Taxila? Or Mobilink headquarters in Islamabad? Would there even be an Islamabad… would Karachi have been anything but a provincial backwater dwarfed by Bombay? Perhaps Lahore is one city that lost out as a result in short term… but in the final assessment, it too is benefiting from the process.

    Nation states have their own logic… you need people to engage in commerce, communications, business and other trades and professions. For a people generally confined by choice to soldiering and agriculture, the pressures of nationhood opened new economic avenues.

    So to answer your question… Pakistan is a nation state of real borders… it doesn’t need to constantly justify itself…. it doesn’t need a theory to exist or a nazaria. It exists because we want it to exist. So there is no point going in circles on this issue. Pakistan was envisaged quite clearly by Jinnah as a state based on constitution which was to be impartial to all citizens of Pakistan regardless of religion caste or creed. The reason I emphasize Jinnah so much… is itself a counter-argument… to the claim that Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam. This is not borne out by the facts.

    There is an excellent article by Pervez Hoodbhoy on Jinnah and the Islamic state which clears to a large extent the cobwebs … though there are some historical errors in it.

  29. yasserlatifhamdani

    PS to Salman

    By the way on the other board I did review the letter from Sir George Cunningham to Liaqat Ali Khan …. dated 20th September 1947.

    I am afraid your conclusions drawn from the said letter are completely off. First of all notice that the date is 20th September 1947 …. that is a whole month after the creation of Pakistan and long after League had already won the referendum.

    What George Cunningham is saying in 7a is that in order to counter Fakir of Ipi’s revolt against Pakistan, the government of Pakistan must play up the propaganda that Pakistan and Islam are synonymous. Fakir of Ipi … (Read my article on him) … had famously declared that Pakistan was an irreligious state, a bastion of British Imperialism and run by Ismailis and Qadiyanis …

    In George Cunningham’s view the way to counter Fakir of Ipi’s anti-Pakistan activities in the name of Islam in September 1947 was to drive home that Pakistan was a Muslim country and that any activities against it would be unIslamic.

    I am not sure how you derived the conclusion you did.

    I am posting it on the other board as well because it gives an interesting background to why a liberal like Kiyani is resorting to such loigic.

  30. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Karaya,

    How many times must we go over it….

    As I explained in a detailed post why your numbers were completely illogical… given that they show a dramatic decrease in the Muslim population of India in the last 60 years which we know has not historically happened.

    Leaving alone the fact that your numbers are from 1941 census… You are not even counting the large number … upto 6 Million Muslims who moved to Pakistan during or near partition.

    Why don’t you just dig up our old discussion instead of wasting my time and yours again … when you know you are wrong.

  31. karaya


    Leaving alone the fact that your numbers are from 1941 census… You are not even counting the large number … upto 6 Million Muslims who moved to Pakistan during or near partition.

    Actually, even if we add 6 mln, then we reach 62%, but even this is grossly OTT because:

    a) this 62% still contains all Bengali Muslims which we know is not right since W Bengal did not see an sort of Muslim exodus.

    b) East Punabi Muslims are being counted twice. Once as Punjabi Muslims and then as refugees.

    As I explained in a detailed post why your numbers were completely illogical…

    Well since I’ve picked these numbers from The Sole Spokesman, these aren’t “my numbers”, per se, but yes Jalal could be wrong with her numbers, hence my query on where you get your numbers from.

    Why don’t you just dig up our old discussion instead of wasting my time and yours again … when you know you are wrong.

    Actually, that ended sorta inclusively, hence my query (this time with a proper reference) but if it’s any bother at all, we can let it be.


  32. yasserlatifhamdani


    I have now opened to page no 2 of the 1992 edition of the Sole Spokesman

    The numbers mentioned there are….

    1. 33 million in Bengal

    2. 16 million in Punjab

    3. 3 million in Sindh

    4. Approximately 700, 000 in NWFP

    5. 500, 000 in Balochistan

    6. 8 million in UP

    There is no final figures given but let us assume that the remaining numbers were divided between princely states and other areas.

    1 to 5 adds up to 54 million of the 90 million .. (even without migration that amounts to 60% of the population of Muslims) and then there was the migration… 7,226,000 Muslims according to the census of India in 1951 moved from India to Pakistan. But then that is the situation is 10 years later…. the total Muslim population was put at 95-97 million.

    But why should we even bother to calculate that when had you bothered to read above…. your source says:

    “Of this Muslim population, some 60 million in 1947 became citizens of Pakistan…. another 35 million were left inside India…”
    (Ayesha Jalal page 2 of the Sole Spokesman)

    60 + 35 = 95 Million…
    60/95 * 100 > 63 percent… this is according to your source which gives an approximation.

    Now genius… tell us is 63 closer to 56 or 65?

    Next time do your math right… because the footnotes you refer to actually a give an even more damning number if you calculate the birth rate etc.

    “yes Jalal could be wrong with her numbers, hence my query on where you get your numbers from”

    Mian… Jalal is not wrong with her numbers… you just don’t know how to solve simple mathematical problems…

    “where are you getting your numbers from”

    Does it even matter because your own source puts up the figure at 63 percent not 56 as you alleged.

  33. yasserlatifhamdani

    “yes Jalal could be wrong with her numbers, hence my query on where you get your numbers from”

    Mian… Jalal is not wrong with her numbers… you just don’t know how to solve simple mathematical problems…

    “where are you getting your numbers from”

    Does it even matter because your own source puts up the figure at 63 percent not 56 as you alleged.

  34. yasserlatifhamdani

    PS: Once you have checked and re-checked all the numbers and realize how wrong you were then and now… I do hope you will apologize in good spirit for keeping me up …. I feel morally obligated because in my profession if you don’t counter a false assertion, it becomes an accepted fact.

  35. yasserlatifhamdani


    1:17 AM … still no apology in sight from Karaya.

    I suppose some people are just not honorable enough to admit it when they are so utterly and illogically in the wrong.

    Good night friends.

  36. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hussain Mehdi…

    Clearly you don’t have much of a command over the English Language.

    The man who planted the hoax was Agha Shorish Kashmiri who was himself the kind who would dream up conspiracy theories of zionist-american kind. Au contraire… it is the re-surfacing of the Islamist Ahrari conspiracies against Pakistan…. which have already been documented in the Munir Report.

    Had you bothered to investigate my own work you would know that I have been fighting the Mullah brigade and their conspiracy theories. Had you bothered to read the article, you would know that I had referred to the very same address of Maulana Azad in this article.

  37. Milind Kher

    It is wrong to stereotype people. The general opinion in Hindu society is that Hindus are liberal and Muslims are not.

    They are drawing conclusions from observing Muslims around them, who, being a minority, find refuge in religion and cling to it. They would find the attitude in a Muslim majority nation like Pakistan, for instance, quite different. This blog, for instance, is so much more liberal than any Indian Muslim site.

    At the same time, it needs to be observed that there are fascist forces already trying to undermine the liberal Hindu ethos.

  38. Majumdar

    Yasser/ Karaya,

    There is no need for the two of you to tear each other’s hair out. Reliable stats are available.

    The 1941 census is available as an appendix on Dr BRA’s book hosted on Univ of Columbia website- a simple google search on Pakistan + Ambdekar will show up this book.

    Had Pakistan been formed as per CMP plan the total Muslim population in the Pakistan region (incl Kashmir) wud be 65 million out of a total population of 95 million (Provinces + Princely States) or 68% of the subcontinents Muslims.

    Now as to what happened actually- based on partition of Assam, Bengal and Punjab can be verified by 1951 data. India had a Muslim pop of 35 mio out of c. 350 min, East Pak, 30 mio out of 41 mio, West Pak 32 mio out of 34 mio (if I remember figures correct) plus another 1 mio in POK which means that United Pak inherited about 65% of the undivided India’s Muslim populations post population transfers.


  39. yasserlatifhamdani

    Thanks. Karaya is MIA now.

  40. Karaya


    Karaya is BIA now. Apologise for the late response but I just had no time during the past couple of days.

    1 to 5 adds up to 54 million of the 90 million…

    Your assumption of 90 mln Muslims in United India is not correct. Jalal says (on page two) that the total population of Muslims in United India was ~95 mln.

    54/95= 56.8%; which is what I’ve said all this while.

    Coming to Mazumdar’s suggested source, if you would add up the total M pop of the provinces (appendix II – 79,344,863) and that of the states (appendix III – 15,733,133) you get the total M pop in UI to be 95,077,996.

    However, appendix I lists the pop as 92.1 mln for some reason and a person more learned than me in these matters tells me (of the top of his head, so he might, just might be wrong) that the latter is correct.

    Anyways, even if you do take it to be 92.1 mln, (Punjab+Bengal+Bal’stan+Sindh+NWFP)’s share of the UI Muslim pop at birth comes to be 58.6%.

    At birth, of course, Pakistan would have had a much lower percentage of Muslims (minus East Punjab and West Bengal’s M pop from the 54 mln)—somewhere around half (and not 65%+) the sub-continent’s M pop.

    “Of this Muslim population, some 60 million in 1947 became citizens of Pakistan…. another 35 million were left inside India…”
    (Ayesha Jalal page 2 of the Sole Spokesman)

    I’m afraid Jalal’s 35 mln figure is wrong here (maybe she never realised that some day, blogs would be invented).

    She’s superimposed 1951’s figures on 1947. 35 mln is how many Muslims India had according to the 1951 census. You can Google it or I can give you links if need be. According to the 1951 census, India’s Muslims pop was 9.91% of 361 mln (India’s population) which is ~35 mln (I guess Mazumdar has also said the same thing).

    When the twins were born on 15 August/conceived on 3rd June (before the migrations), I don’t think it is possible for 35 million Muslims to be left inside (Independent) India’s borders. This figure should be larger.


    The 1941 census is available as an appendix on Dr BRA’s book hosted on Univ of Columbia website

    Thank you and here are the figures from the appendix (APPENDIX II: Communal Distribution Of Population By Minorities In The Provinces Of British India) of Ambedkar’s book:

    British Baluchistan = 438,930
    Bengal = 33,005,434
    N.W.F.P. = 2,788,797
    Punjab = 16,217,242
    Sind = 3,054,635

    Which adds up to 55,505,038 (55 mln) which in turn is ~58% of United India’s Muslim population of 95 mln (or ~59% if you take the M pop of UI to be 92.1 mln) The slight difference from when we used Jalal’s figures is because Jalal has rounded off the 1941 Census figures.

    Your 65 mln comes from you adding Kashmir and Assam, I guess, which is nice but of course there was no such state.


    The current ratio between India’s, Pakistan’s and BD’s Muslims is not because of the original population distribution as it existed when Pakistan was born (which must have contained around half of U India’s Muslims population when it was born) but it came about largely due to the communal holocaust after Partition which forced people to migrate (which is a point we touched upon on the other board too, if I remember correctly).

  41. YLH

    Ayesha Jalal says very clearly on page 2 that 60 million or so were part of Pakistan and 35 million were part of India.

    60/95 * 100 = 63 percent +

    Now that you’ve been comprehensively proven wrong you are indulging dramaybazi as usual.

    For your information Ayesha Jalal’s 95 million are for 1947. The 90 million I posted was for 1941.

    You keep changing goalposts. Now you are claiming that Ayesha Jalal is wrong but the evidence you give is concocted on your own.

    Since you are an utterly dishonorable crook who did not have the decency to apologize when I gave you the chance, you are going to be on spam from now on.

  42. yasserlatifhamdani

    PS. 7.2 million Muslims moved to Pakistan according to Indian census of displaced persons. 55 million + 7.2 million equals 62 million 62 / 95 * 100 is higher than 64 percent.

    And here too you’ve shown your dishonest control freakery because 55 million is not 1947 number but actually 1941 number. (Also 95 million was a 1947 number). So you’ve gotten all your percentages wrong.

    So by your calculations themselves, the total percentage has to be higher than 66 percent or so.

    But you are either too crooked or too stupid or both to see such simple mathematical solutions.

  43. Karaya


    55 million + 7.2 million equals 62 million 62 / 95 * 100 is higher than 64 percent.

    I’ve said something similar in my last para.


    Anyways, this is all getting a bit too anal for me.


  44. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Karaya,

    You claim that there is no “1947” number. In other words you think the Muslim population remained constant from 1941 to 1947?

    Since the discussion was always about how many Muslims became Pakistani citizens and not just about the 60 percent who made Pakistan’s population, your entire circular argument is useless, irrelevant and crooked.

    By your own numbers (based on 1941 census) 55 million + 7.2 =62.2 million

    62.2 / 95 * 100 = 64 + percent.

    Since this is the only claim I made the only thing you’ve done here is prove that you are someone who is just too pigheaded, ridiculous and crooked to accept when you are wrong.

    Instead you’ve now gone to the clever device of figures “before migration” which were never in issue.

    So basically you’ve admitted in a round about way that you WERE WRONG all along but are too embarrassed to say it.

    In my book a person like you is simply dishonest.

  45. yasserlatifhamdani

    ‘You think you can “ban” me’

    Maybe not. You are an experienced internet troll. But I can sure as hell blank out everything you write henceforth.

  46. Karaya


  47. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Karaya,

    Every discussion has its context. It is quite clear from the context that 1947 meant the total citizens as a result of the partition of India ie when Juxtaposed against 1971. Besides upto 60 to 70 percent of the migration happened within 47-48.

    I doubt that you are under misapprehension on this point and now are simply clutching for straws after being proven wrong.

    Since the discussion between Salman Latif and I was always on the point of how many Muslims were ultimately left behind as Indian citizens all said and done as a result of the partition of 1947 …there can’t be any confusion on this point.

    Now that you’ve admitted that the number was upward of 64 or 65 percent (which is something you were unwilling to accept above), I’ll accept it as a much needed rectification of your point.

    Let me remind you that you cannot claim that you were only talking of pre-migration figures given your own history.

    Also – there is absolutely no significance whatsoever of this innocuous fact other than my personal satisfaction of knowing that you are wrong and have now changed goalposts proving just how wrong you were even further.

  48. Karaya

    But I can sure as hell blank out everything you write henceforth.

    Yes, but how will you know who I am?

    That’s the beauty of the Internet, nigga–can’t blank out the EDITED

  49. fake yasserlatifhamdani (aka Karaya)


  50. yasserlatifhamdani

    I see that you’ve lost your mind completely after Ayesha Jalal (your source) proved you wrong.

    Good night little boy. Next time just admit when you are wrong.

  51. Karaya

    Anyways, ma brother, it was good bustin caps in yo ass but I have work to do now.

    Hopefully, in the future you’ll debate on the dint of your arguments, till then adios.

  52. yasserlatifhamdani

    You remind me of the Black knight in monty python.

  53. Karaya

    Well then I’m tempted to say, in that case, you’re the chap who fought the Black Knight before Arthur.

  54. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yes. Whatever you say.

    Next time read your text before you argue on its basis… so that you don’t have to disown the source altogether later.

  55. Majumdar

    Karaya mian,

    You have not studied the data carefully. You have considered only the Provinces population, you need to add Princely states as well. (appendix III)

    You need to add not only Kashmir (3.0 mio) and Assam (3.5 mio) but also princely states attached to Punjab (2.30 mio), Bengal (0.4 mio), NWFP and b’stan (0.4 mio)agencies. Kindly do so and you will get 65 million

    Alternatively if u wish to ignore princely states then you cant take the base as 95 mio but 79 mio so the ratio works out to 55/79 or 70%

    Let us be consistent at least.


  56. yasserlatifhamdani


    And that would make you Arthur ;)

  57. Karaya

    King of the Britons, defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England,

    You need to add not only Kashmir (3.0 mio) and Assam (3.5 mio) but also princely states attached to Punjab (2.30 mio), Bengal (0.4 mio), NWFP and b’stan (0.4 mio) agenciesi

    Sire, don’t mean to be cheeky or anything, but the province of Assam (3.5 mln) is a part of India. Either that or those ULFA chaps have got it a bit wrong.

    The ‘Assam’ you see in Appendix III are some minor princely states (maybe Tripura?) who have a Muslim pop of .03 mln (not a typo) and would today be a part of India .

    And, well so is most of Kashmir (part of India). Kalat/Swat etc you can add most certainly add (0.4 mln). Most Punjabi princely states are in East Punjab methinks (but I’m not too sure).

    So even though these territories (PHK, some Punjoo states, Kalat) were not part of Pakistan at birth but it would be practical to include them, I guess. But even so, that would at best push up the 55 mln to 57 mln (61%).

    Of course, as I’ve said a million times, this contains East Punjab and West Bengali Ms too (for example, Murshidabad alone contains almost a million Ms), so I don’t see how this takes away from my point of Pakistan at birth containing around half of India’s Ms.

  58. yasserlatifhamdani

    You are not being cheeky. Just plain stupid.

    Read Majumdar’s post again. And besides your point is irrelevant because the issue was never how many Muslims were native citizens of Pakistan on 14th August which comes to around 61 percent how many Muslims became the citizens of Pakistan as a result of partition.

    Your own numbers when added to the 7.2 million of the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan according to Indian census of displaced persons …the number goes up to 64 million + which means in excess of 66 percent I originally stated above.

    So your discussion is pointless and now you are hiding behind technicality of the exact date and time of partition when the relevance of this discussion can only be in terms of the eventual number.

    How long are you going to keep it up. Just admit you were wrong.

  59. Karaya


    …the relevance of this discussion can only be in terms of the eventual number.

    I don’t agree to that because on the 3rd of June no one knew what the eventual numbers would be. In fact, these eventual numbers would have been a lot different if Mountbottom could have done things the way it should have been done rather than s*dding away.

    …Muslims were native citizens of Pakistan on 14th August which comes to around 61 percent

    No, much lower. E Punjoos and W bongs have to be taken away from 61%.

    Anyways, I am tired of this.

    Thanks for your time. Have a nice Sunday.

  60. yasserlatifhamdani

    According to your source 63 + percent Muslims of south Asia became citizens of Pakistan as the result of partition of India.

    According to your own numbers this number is 65 or 66 percent.

    You’ve been adding and subtracting numbers of princely states and changing goal posts and standards when proven wrong.

    I don’t know what your problem is but so far you’ve proven yourself to be a rather disgusting fellow.

    That said…one agrees that if Mountbatten had not messed up royally, the number would have in excess of 70 percent.

  61. Cj

    this is BOGUS!!

  62. Cj

    no offense to the author but i do not believe this..shorish kashmiri could have taken more than one interview from Azad Sahib..I guess you are not fully aware about how much Azad Sahib admired Shorish!

  63. YLH

    Dear CJ,

    If you think it is “bogus”, then there is an easy way of proving me wrong… produce the 1946 Chittan Issue with Maulana Azad’s interview which says all this.

    I am sure Maulana Azad adored Shorish with all his heart… but we also know that Shorish was also a deceitful and deceptive character.

    Till you produce hard evidence from verifiable issue of 1946 Chittan (or even an excerpt from Azad’s papers which says this), Shorish’s interview is a fake or atleast large parts of it are.

  64. Bilal Gillani

    i agree wid cj here,seems like ur da one who needs da reality check here man. u have have ur own opinion,dats fine,but u have no authority to call him decietful nor deceptive.pls watch wat ur saying!

  65. ylh

    Bilal mian… Shorish was a disgusting islamo-fascist bigot and an asshole like no other.

    Anyway the issue is the interview. Why don’t you guys produce the copy of Chittan from 1946 because even Azad own papers has no reference to this.

  66. Bilal Gillani

    tsk tsk…dis is coming from a well read, educated man,wut a joke!haha now this proves dat ur shitty article is nothing but ur desperate, attention seeking soul’s personal grudges:p YASIR LATEEF HAMID-WUT A JOKE!

  67. Nazir Shah


  68. Nazir Shah

    shorish kashmiri was a devoted lover of the Holy Prophet (SAW)
    ylh if you call him names then you are an asshole yourself=)

  69. Nazir Shah

    i repeat shorish jaisa koi nahi..puray pak-o-hind mai!!!
    Shorish Kashmiri Zindabad
    now don’t delete my comments sir
    thank you

  70. Nazir Shah

    and the newspaper was CHATTAN not Chittan

  71. Nazir Shah


  72. Nazir Shah

    plus sir why don’t you write about haiti or some other burning issues..instead og digging out old unauthenticated me,you’ll get more fame with that=)

  73. hassan siyal

    hey why don’t you write about haiti or some other burning issues..instead og digging out old unauthenticated me,you’ll get more fame with that=)

  74. hassan siyal

    i agree with nazir..!!
    yaar tu cha gaya hay

  75. AZW

    Bilal Gillani/Nazir Shah/Hassan Siyal/Daniyal Singh:

    First thing you should consider it stop congratulating yourself under these different names. I have checked the IP addresses for all of the identities. As many here on the forum may have realized, they are exactly the same.

    This is a deceitful and dishonest bahaviour on your part to start with on this forum, and bodes quite ill for all your future contributions. As such, you are warned not to post here on this forum. Your past comments will be left for everyone to see the deceit that you started with here. Your future comments will be promptly deleted. You are welcome to take your behaviour anywhere else on the web where you will find the likeminded people.

  76. daniyal singh

    Deleted for Nonsense (PTH)

  77. daniyal singh

    Deleted (PTH)

  78. hassan siyal

    ylh you are being delusional..STOP TAKING THOSE DRUGS

  79. hassan siyal


  80. Bilal Gillani

    the person who needs to take his act away is ur contributor…he’s the 1st one who misused his liberty…he had his opinion to convey…fine…but we can surely work widout his crappy language…please..u guys the the bigots here…

  81. khurram khose

    u fucking faggottttttt!!!

  82. khurram khose

    yasser latif hamdani is a piece of qadiani shit..

  83. khurram khose

    if u r so fucking rite abt the facts then STOP DELETING PRO-SHORISH KASHMIRI COMMENTS!!! U LOSE FACE

  84. khurram khose

    I checked ur IP address too..u r getting cheap popularity…GO ROT IN HELL!!!!

  85. Bilal Gillani

    khurram yar dont waste ur energy… them that ur more than that…

  86. ylh

    I urge the moderators not to delete the abuse and personal attacks against me by this one single interactor.

    Remember he is the follower of Agha Shorish Kashmiri the crook and bigot in chief and the confirmed enemy of Mr. Jinnah and Pakistan.

  87. Bilal Gillani

    oh luk who finally showed up! apart from being a COMPLETE moron, he’s also a first class hypocrit! man check ur own previous posts- it’ll be quite limpid whose da bad mouth here! plz GET A LIFE! (or any other means of obtaining popularity cuz believe me, UR DESPERATE! hahahaha, i repeat: YLH-WHAT A JOKE!

  88. ylh

    Gillani mian you are a true admirer of that Pakistan hating crook Shorish Kashmiri.

  89. Ehsan Shah

    I am impressed with the knowledge and research of Mr. YLH. With his powerfull strong arguments about history and religion, he really made me believe that this interview is “questionable” interview. My only point is if the ” Chattan” was not published back then and nobody has any proof of this interview was ever published than how can we assumed that Sorish Kashmiri forged this interview. Wouldn’t you wonder that Mr. MP forged this? Mr. Shorish is not here to take the credit or responsibility that he did this interview with Mulana Azad. So why blame or accuse him?

  90. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ehsan Shah

    1. Chittan was published back then. No one has produced a copy of it though.

    2. This interview forms part of Shorish’s book on Azad.

    All I am asking for is primary source evidence for this interview which is questionable.

  91. Arbab

    azad sb died in augest 1958 after about 12 years of this interview. There is no chance he didn’t come to know about this interview publication. Then if he did not deny it, what wait does this persons analysis carry ???

  92. yasserlatifhamdani


    Who says this interview was forged within Azad’s lifetime?

    The book was published in the 1970s. Do you have evidence that it actually does exist in Chittan ? Because I’ll withdraw my objection if it does.

    Try to get the argument ..otherwise what “wait” does your commonsense carry?

  93. komal

    seriously people u need to get a life
    all u Pakistanis do is criticize each others work.
    since u dont have any proof yaseer u cnt prove anything anyone cn analyze anything and conclude anything but keep it to urself u have no right to blame anyone.let them rest in peace. at least they did sum work for their country unless like u ppl sit on their asses all day n criticize others work.
    n AGHA means respect in PERSIAN so get ur facts straight and stop abusing shia’s shame on u ppl and u call urself muslims.DISCRIMINATION is nt allowed in Islam….
    wat dne is dne..think abt the future and do sumthing abt it rather then ruining the past events.

  94. YLH


    Are you stupid? Because Agha Shorish Kashmiri was a SUNNI FANATIC not a Shia.
    Jesus where the fuck do people like you come out of!

    Your hay-wire comment makes me think that you are stupid bimbo Komal Rizvi – who is too fat to make a comeback on TV.

  95. Anil


    It is possible, afterall it is like a fortune teller speaking those words.

  96. Well… One thing is for sure proven that
    YLH meed to get some life….

    So called researcher of old dirt…and trying to buy fame on other people’s grave…. Shame …YLH

    Keep on dreaming…. that there will be even a word written about you in …positive aspect…

    Shame Shame ….and more Shame to you

  97. arsalan

    yaaser latif hamdani read this you will love it,i’m going to tell you for once and all,i know who you are and if you want to talk about forgery,betrayal and keeping it in the dark,just hear me son of a qadiani cunt and all your others qadiani waste of stinky flesh who are liking this page just to get two minutes of fame.Mutherfuckers stop hating the greatest writer,orator ,narrator,speaker,patriotic and above all the greatest follower of holy prophet in the history of sub-continent.
    I know this is just a grudge against his work regarding khatame nubuwatand i also know he made your people life a living hell and forced zulfiqar ali bhutto to declare you piece of shits as a minority and non muslims,stop hating player it aint gonna change anything and now i will bring you to the interview which he did took it before the independence while working for his mentor and published it after the Independence from chattan.I’m sorry if i ruin your bitch ass day and i know your background you people follow a person who died in the restroom face down enough said, enjoy bitch

  98. arsalan


  99. arsalan


  100. arsalan


  101. arsalan


  102. YLH

    “now i will bring you to the interview which he did took it before the independence while working for his mentor and published it after the Independence from chattan”

    No need to bring me to it. Please merely scan it and shame me by proving me wrong.