Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Distortions About The Pakistan Movement

This is in response to Ishtiaq Ahmed sb’s article published in Daily Times. I also encourage everyone to read my article “Heretic, Communist, Muslim Leaguer” in DT today of which I shall produce a detailed version later. -YLH

Ishtiaq Ahmed’s distortions about Pakistan Movement

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed in his article has once again faithfully reproduced his arguments from an earlier article which was in my view historically inaccurate and wrong. I do not dare question Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s motives in distorting history – though it is sadly second nature to him but I do question the wisdom of Dr. Ahmed’s deliberate targetting of Shias and Ahmadis in his articles.

Consider:  He writes that the demand for Islamic state in the League came from Raja of Mahmudabad- a Shia and one of the closest confidantes of Jinnah.     Nothing wrong with that claim but Dr. Ahmed deliberately omits what Jinnah- who was himself a Khoja twelver Shia- said in response.   This is how Raja sahib himself recalled the event:

“Lahore Resolution was passed earlier in the year, and when Pakistan was formed it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunnah and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution.

Raja sahib was then asked to distance himself from the League which he did.  This is no small omission on part of Dr. Ahmed and this is an omission he makes repeatedly.  A half truth is – as good doctor would admit-  no truth at all.  Then comes his usual “Pir of Manki Sharif letter” argument.  Ishtiaq Ahmed alleges that in this letter proves that Jinnah had promised Sharia to the Pir.  May I suggest to Dr sahib to see what Jinnah promised and then pick up the Shariat Act of 1937 and compare the two.    Shariat Act of 1937 is the bedrock of Muslim laws in Secular India mind you.   Jinnah had promised the application of Shariat to affairs of the Muslim community and this would include matters like inheritance,  family laws etc.   Ofcourse Dr. Ahmed either would not know or would not admit that much later – long after independence-  it was a Jinnah-trained lawyer- Daniyal Latifi, a leftist, a member of the Muslim League and the author Punjab Muslim League’s manifesto,  who got a hapless old woman, inappropriately named Shah Bano,  a Supreme Court verdict on alimony.   It was the secular Congress Party which then overturned the verdict through legislature on grounds that offended the religious sensibilities of Muslims (read Deoband).

Perhaps the unkindest cut of them all is the claim that Ahmadis were wary of the Pakistan Movement initially till “Zafrulla was won over”.  There is no doubt that the Munir Report is an extraordinary document- perhaps the finest in our history- but that doesn’t mean everything claimed in it is in toto accurate.  A researcher’s job – Ishtiaq Ahmed told me in private correspondence- is to sift through facts and arrive at independent analysis.   Well historically everyone is aware of Sir Zafrulla’s role in the roundtable conference as Punjab’s main man.   No less a person than Khan Abdul Wali Khan – whose book forms a major reference point for Ishtiaq Ahmed –  claimed with absolute certainty that Sir Zafrulla, “a Qadiyani”,  was the author of the Lahore Resolution.  Ostensibly if Zafrulla was the author of the Lahore Resolution and the Lahore Resolution marks the start of the Pakistan Movement,  wouldn’t Ishtiaq Ahmed’s claim amount to blowing hot and cold over nothing?

The truth is that Ahmadis were closely involved with Jinnah as early as 1931 when he went and attended Juma prayers at their London Mosque.  It was the  Imam of the Woking Mosque who being Jinnah’s close friend convinced him in 1934 to return to India and take over the Muslim League.  The Ahmadiyya movement’s chief – Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud- was at this time the president of the All India Kashmir Committee. One of its more famous board members was Allama Iqbal. This was before Iqbal turned notoriously anti-Ahmadi in his last years over a familial dispute over his Ahmadi half brother.

I could go on demolishing Ishtiaq Ahmed’s assertions which are historically completely off the mark but that would take up too much space.    One must however question Ishtiaq Ahmed on his private griefs.  In my view there have always been two kinds of threads in South Asian Islam – the heterodox variety which consists of Barelvis (the low church), Shias, Ismailis Ahmadis, Mahdavis (Nawab Bahadur Yaar Jung was a Mahdavi for example) and the high church Deoband.    The former overwhelmingly sided with Jinnah and the Muslim League, with the exception of a small unrepresentative body.   The latter overwhelmingly supported the Congress Party with the exception of a small unrepresentative group.

I suspect however that Ishtiaq Ahmed’s loyalties don’t lie with Deoband.  I would put him squarely in the camp of Agha Shorish Kashmiri – the Ahmadi-hater –  who also invented a fake interview with Maulana Azad to discredit Pakistan and its creation.  With ideological gurus like that is it any wonder that Ishtiaq Ahmed has such a hardtime telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

48 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

48 responses to “Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Distortions About The Pakistan Movement

  1. ali arqam

    @YLH
    If U have read Wajahat Masood’s series of articles about Objective resolution and secularism, U would have found that Jinnah from the very begining was clear about the state but at the popular front it was the league leadership even Liaqat A Khan who have intentionally created an ambiguity around the new state and its system. He referred to Akhlaq A Dehlvi who while asking the league leaders about the future state clearly mentioned that Jinnah wants a secular democracy like Turkey, but the league leadership in their populist tactics have never supported Jinnah in this regard, never before partition nor after…

  2. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ali I agree with you but ishtiaq sb kay masail kuch aur hain. He wants to prove that Ahmadis were not part of the Pakistan movement.

    The short comings of the Muslim League as a party and the vagueness of the idea that was being touted for Pakistan has been discussed and very eloquently expressed by Ali Sethi’s piece.

  3. Sher Zaman

    History is very deceiving, especially that is manipulated purposely by a group of few people. We hope that the lines drawn by the founder of this country, not nation, are followed, so that we can get back on the path of development.

  4. skyview

    The pakistan movement meant different things to different people.

    Did Jinnah use it or was he used by it?

    A man who has not authored a book and taken ultra-care to keep it free from contradictions and mistakes – such a person will end up becoming a source of murky controversies.

    Letters, emails, articles, conversations, speeches, speeches in assemblies, blogs – all that has no long-term significance. A book is something different by its very class and time. It needs a different effort, stamina and sustenance.

    Ishtiaq Ahmed has announced a 1000-page forthcoming book of his.

  5. ” “Lahore Resolution was passed earlier in the year, and when Pakistan was formed it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunnah and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution.”

    Source ?? Reference ???

  6. Another joke of the history

    “There is no doubt that the Munir Report is an extraordinary document- perhaps the finest in our history- but that doesn’t mean everything claimed in it is in toto accurate.:

    Boss fact is that its one of the biggest lie & deception of Pak history

  7. yasserlatifhamdani

    What part is deception? Point out page number and claim. I have it on my desk.

  8. Moosa

    I’ve only read excerpts from the Munir Report, I haven’t read it in its entirety. From a legal perspective (I graduated in law before taking up medicine), I can only offer my opinion that it’s a masterful legal exposition. Pakistan has great minds, what saddens me that often the greatest minds of Pakistan have been denigrated by the general population.

  9. Majumdar

    Kashif mian,

    FYI

    ……Jinnah and Raja Sahib had a very close relationship (like that of a father and son) till their differences arose over the nature of the future state. In his essay ‘Some Memories’ (re-published in 1994 in Mushir-ul-Hasan’s edited book, India’s Partition-Process, Strategy and Mobilisation, pages 415-426), Raja Sahib recalled: “My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah shared my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to the public. As I was convinced that I was right and did not want to compromise Jinnah’s position, I decided to cut myself away and for nearly two years kept my distance from him, apart from seeing him during the working committee meetings and on other formal occasion. It was not easy to take this decision as my associations with Jinnah had been very close in the past. Now that I look back I realise how wrong I had been” (page 425).

    Regards

    PS: Wonder how Yasser Pai missed this evidence

  10. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashif pai kay bhejay pay seal lag gayee hai.

    So I can’t produce evidence repeatedly.

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  11. Moosa

    @ YLH

    “He wants to prove that Ahmadis were not part of the Pakistan movement.”

    There are two types of humans in this world: the pioneer and the parasite. Every pioneer was opposed by the parasites of society. For instance, the first person who said the world revolved around the sun was opposed and persecuted by his people. But eventually, his idea prevailed, because truth has come and falsehood has vanished, verily truth breaks falsehood. Then gradually the parasites themselves accepted the idea of the pioneer, after they murdered the pioneer, and eventually they enjoyed the benefits of this idea. But the most immoral and heartrending event is when the parasites start to claim the idea as their own, and say that the pioneer had nothing to do with the idea.

    Muhammad Zafrullah Khan was one of the companions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), we ahmadi muslims count him as a sahabi because he actually pledged allegiance at the hand of Ghulam Ahmad (as). Zafrullah Khan represented Pakistan before Pakistan was even created, he subsequently was the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and he continued to serve Pakistan in various capacities after Qaid i Azam’s demise. Not only this, but he was the personal guest of the King of Saudi Arabia because of his services to the Islamic world, and numerous Islamic countries bestowed awards to him in recognition of such. Not one of the politicians who is alive in Pakistan today did even a fraction of what Zafrullah Khan did for Pakistan or the Islamic world. But this is ever the fate of the pioneer, when parasites take over a country, that the parasites claim superiority over the pioneer.

    My concern is that if we permit the parasites to alter history in their favour, then not only will they re-write history against the Ahmadis, against Zafrullah Khan, against Abdus Salam, but this path of destruction will not end there, it will continue so that eventually they will start to write away the contribution of Qaid i Azam, and suddenly we will read in Pakistani history books that Maulana Maududi himself went to London and negotiated the creation of Pakistan with Winston Churchill in the Round Table Conference !!!

  12. “I would put him squarely in the camp of Agha Shorish Kashmiri – the Ahmadi-hater – who also invented a fake interview with Maulana Azad to discredit Pakistan and its creation”

    In the same way one can say there are only Dawn people are reporting August 11 speech, who are biased, left winger, liberal fascist, who have irritation with Islam & distort history.

  13. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashif mian…eik to ishtiaq ahmed has written a 5 part series on 11th August speech.

    Doosra yeh kay… Dawn let me remind you was founded, funded and conceived by Jinnah himself. Jinnah himself appointed one of the secular liberal left leaning Indians ie Pothan Joseph as the editor of Daily Dawn.

  14. A correction:

    Qaid e Azam went to Fazl Mosque in Putney.. not the Woking Mosque. Imam Abdur Raheem Dard was the Imam of Putney Mosque where Qaid spoke to a gathering of students and dignitaries.

    Fazl Mosque is currently the residence of Imam Jamaat Ahmadiyya.

  15. kashifiat

    Ahmadi Exposed !

    //Muhammad Zafrullah Khan was one of the companions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), we ahmadi muslims count him as a sahabi because he actually pledged allegiance at the hand of Ghulam Ahmad (as).//

    YLH ! What is this (as) meaning ???? & “”Sahabi”

    Its clear like a clear Dawn (not liberal mouth piece)

  16. yasserlatifhamdani

    Aww…why don’t you file a complaint against them under 298B of the PPC of how your feelings have been outraged because they said AS for Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.

  17. Moosa

    kashifiat: “Answer these Ahmadi idiots”

    Allah (swt): “And when it is said to them, ‘Believe as people have believed,’ they say: ‘Shall we believe as the foolish have believed?’ Beware! it is surely they that are foolish, but they do not know.” [Surah al Baqarah, verse 14]

    kashifiat, ahmadis have never willingly hidden their beliefs. we believe in Allah (swt), His rasool Muhammad (saw) as the khatam an nabiyeen, in all the prophets, the angels, in the afterlife, and in taqdeer. we pronounce the kalima “laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullah”, we pray salat 5 times daily and tahajjud and nawafil, we fast during the holy month of ramadan, we pay zakat, and we go on hajj. we believe that the historical jesus (as) was a prophet sent to the jewish nation exclusively because the Holy Qur’an says he was a prophet for the jewish nation, and we believe the historical jesus (as) is dead because the Holy Qur’an says that the prophets before Muhammad (saw) are dead. i don’t know if you actually read the Holy Qur’an, but i can provide you with references. we believe that it is an insult to the grandeur of Muhammad Mustafa (saw) to think that the nation of Moses (as) could bring forth so many prophets but the nation of Muhammad (saw) could not produce even a single prophet and instead the poor deprived muslims will have to wait for an old jewish prophet to save them in the future. we believe that in fact you are insulting the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) by this belief, but we allow you to have your belief, because belief is a matter of the heart and conscience and can never be forced by compulsion. we believe that muslims can be raised to the status of prophets through the beautiful teaching of Muhammad (saw), and we believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) attained this status by his faithful adherence to the teaching of Muhammad (saw), Khatam an Nabiyeen, the best of creation. For this reason, we say “alaihi salam” after the name of Ghulam Ahmad (as).

  18. Ali Arqam

    @PTH Editors
    As peoples like Khashifiaat and his Ahmedi counterparts spoiling every discussion with their idiotic assertions…plz for the sake of meaningful debate, put idiots like them on spam…

  19. kashifiat

    See the dinner hosted by Ahmadies, in Hefa -Isreal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiFAlM9xv_g

  20. kashifiat

    Ali Arqam ! What about You, are YOUR abilities are less than any IDIOT of Al Zulfiqar

  21. Moosa

    okay, so tolerance doesn’t mean i can say the words “alaihi salam” (on whom be peace) after a person’s name?

    so what exactly does tolerance mean? when you say you believe in tolerance, what exactly is your definition of tolerance?

    by the way, i note you didn’t refute that no living pakistani politician and no mullah did more for pakistan than zafrullah khan (ra). i should warn you: you won’t escape me.🙂

  22. mirza ghulam ahmed

    What about Maudoodi laeen, who had insulted prophets as Noah, Moosa, Yunas and many Sahabis in his books.
    JI has clearly written in their party constitution in their principles as anyone can be criticized except Allah and the Prophet(PBUH).
    I can not understand the whining of JI peoples who theirselves have their literature filled with blasphemous stuff and criticize others..A JUI mullah said about them..1 mardoodi follower is more dangerous than 100 jews.
    Mardoodi served all of his life the feudals and US and started his journey to hell from the same US, where Qozi daughter is living with his husband sworn to be faithful to America like his spiritual father Mardoodvi,

  23. ali arqam

    Al Zulfiqar??
    I believe in Non violance. The violant part is left for al badr, al shams, hizb O ijt like stuffs…
    Killing poor bengalis and beating professors…it suits these peoples only.
    One thing I love about S Maudoodi sb is bringing sensible person like Haider Farooq Maudoodi,

  24. Moosa

    I’d like to add a few words to my earlier statement. I do believe that Ghulam Ahmad (as) was a nabi and follower of Muhammad (saw), and I don’t care how much that infuriates you, your anger has minimal significance for me. However, I’m not a British agent, I’m not an Israeli agent, I don’t work for CIA, I’m not an agent of India, I have no plan to bring down the Pakistani government, and I don’t eat blood of muslim babies. Just wanted to clarify any misconceptions. :p

  25. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashifiat … Tu aisay kar kay in Ahmadion pur 298 B ka muqadma kar… Also look at 295 … Your last comment …legally … Is a violation of Pakistan Penal Code as well. After all now Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is a “founder” of another religion.

  26. //// I do believe that Ghulam Ahmad (as) was a nabi////

    You need psycho therapy , u r a case of chronic schizophrenia

  27. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashif mian… by making Ahmadis non-Muslim you also logically gave them this right …. so how can you now deny your own doing.

    If he feels A B or C is Nabi… don’t you feel that non-Muslim minorities should have the right to believe it?

  28. Moosa

    Kashifiat: “You need psycho therapy , u r a case of chronic schizophrenia”

    Allah (swt): “But there never came to them a Prophet but they mocked at him.” [Surah al Zukhruf, v.8]

  29. yasserlatifhamdani

    Renowned bigot has quoted Ishtiaq Ahmed’s article on his blog… as the gospel truth.

    Khush raho mian professor….

  30. kashifiat

    YLH “If he feels A B or C is Nabi… don’t you feel that non-Muslim minorities should have the right to believe it?”

    It means you are accepting that those who claimed that Mr A B or C is nabi is non Muslim’

    I have a Question to You – YLH /AWZ & RR, now after the clear declaration of Moosa that MGAQ was nabi & Zafar as Sahabi (Nauzobillah), do you still believe that Ahmadies are Muslim? I need honest clear worded answer,

  31. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashifiat are you stupid? Do you think YLH, AZW and RR didn’t know that Ahmadis believe MGAQ to be nabi when we took our stance.

    Our stance – for your clarity- is what Jinnah said “who am I to declare someone a non-muslim who professes to be a Muslims”.

    My question to you el-malik-al-miqaad is this … Now that you’ve declared Ahmadis non-muslim, how can you deny them the right to call the founder of their religion AS and Zafrulla Khan a sahabi?

    What kind of double standards, hypocrisy and bigotry is this?

  32. skyview

    To believe that god sends or raises prophets is a fad from the west-asiatic shores and deserts. We in the indian subcontinent should not go down that path. Prophethod-based religions will be making for more disasters. They are confused and will never admit that. A book containing statements, declarations, commands (with many contradictions and ambiguities thrown in) and intimidations (with a few briberies thrown in) is not a book of knowledge and guidance. It is an insult to god to call it a book of divine guidance.

  33. OMLK

    “who am I to declare someone a non-muslim who professes to be a Muslims”. said Jinnah.

    This is also the view of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, and many thinking Muslims as evidenced on this blog.. Unfortunately most Organised Islamic organsiation (except ofcourse the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement) do not subscribe to this point of view, and this includes the Qadian/Rabwah faction of Ahmadis who think that it is necessary to accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet to be a Muslim.

  34. kashifiat

    Our stance – for your clarity- is what Jinnah said “who am I to declare someone a non-muslim who professes to be a Muslims”.

    Jinnah was not prophet, he is not the standard to call Ahmadies as mon Muslims. Its the responsibility of Ulema, who accomplished their responsibility.

    But Here, I need to know, how a Muslim can tolerate the bull shits of Mossa, only Ahmadies can tolerate.

    Aren’t You & your clan is …..i?

  35. yasserlatifhamdani

    Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the founding father of Pakistan. His standard is very important. Are you saying now that he was not a good Muslim who didn’t know what he was talking about?

    What reversal Kashifiat mian… but I suppose asliat bahir nikal ayee… yahan … aur tumharay blog pur jahan you’ve posted Ishtiaq Ahmed’s anti-Quaid article

  36. YLH ! Pls come out from your limited scope. QA was Muslim & Islam is the divine religion. I don’t believe on your quotes because it always has “hygiene” issues polluted & contaminated from liberal / socialist sources.

    And Yes I believe QA can’t be the standard for Islamic teachings & direction for this purpose we have to see Quran & Sunna.

    By Calling QA as secular you are insulting him again & again,

    But u didn’t gave answer

    But Here, I need to know, how a Muslim can tolerate the bull shits of Mossa, only Ahmadies can tolerate.

    Aren’t You & your clan is …..i?

  37. yasserlatifhamdani

    First learn to write in the English language. Didn’t and past tense of a verb don’t go together. And Quaid e Azam was completely secular whether you like it or not. It is not an insult. You insult him by trying to paint a beard on a man who hated Mullahs like you with a passion.

    As for your other questions…only kuti kaa bachas from Maududian mould have a problem with what someone else believes which is his or her human right. All human beings tend to allow each other the freedom of thought and conscience.

    “I don’t believe on your quotes”

    Unlike you I am not a dishonest crook asshole. So don’t believe “on” my quotes … you live in your own little maududian fantasy world of anal retention which stinks like hell.

  38. kashifiat

    Clap Clap clap

    What a language used by highly English learn person /animal like you. See the sophistacated language used by a person who has bu polar mental disorder. See the gems

    * kuti kaa bachas from Maududian
    * asshole
    * world of anal retention

    “insult him by trying to paint a beard on a man”

    Dear Manic ! PBUH also has beard, so don’t insult beard, By the way your prophet MGAQ malaoon also had beard

  39. yasserlatifhamdani

    Your weak command over the English language makes you incapable of understanding metaphorical use of the beard which you wish to paint on Jinnah. It maybe remembered that the father of enlightenment Sir Syed also had a beard and so did Karl Marx the father of Communism.

    Then you write:

    “your prophet MGAQ malaoon”

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmed sahib is not, never was and never will be my prophet – I don’t believe in his ideology… indeed I consider it unmitigated nonsense… but you my friend just violated 295 A and 298 B of the Pakistan Penal Code.

    295 A for insulting the founder of another religion. According to you Ahmadis are Non-Muslims, a position regrettably shared by this republic of ours. Therefore the hatred that you spread against them can be prosecuted under 295 A but sadly Pakistan is not a law abiding society.

    298 B for suggesting that MGAQ was a prophet.

    The sad irony is that the law you guys foisted on Pakistan is so ridiculous and idiotic that any honest implementation of it is impossible.

  40. “Pakistan is not a law abiding society”

    So why Moosa not deserve for prosecution
    Why Ahmadies temples have minarets? against Pakistani law, You should condemn them also

    & “Mirza Ghulam Ahmed sahib”

    What a sophisticated language for a creature based on false, lie & distortion & a conspiracy against Islam

  41. yasserlatifhamdani

    Because chutiyay… I haven’t filed a case against you nor will I file a case against you under 295 A and 298 B. I consider all such laws (295 A, B, C + 298, 298 A,B,C) to be in violation of fundamental human rights of Pakistani citizens as well as Pakistan’s human rights obligations internationally…. these include the laws those I cited are being violated by you.

    Any law that forbids minarets is wrong be it in Switzerland or in Pakistan.

    “What a sophisticated language for a creature based on false, lie & distortion & a conspiracy against Islam”

    You should then ask Dr. Javed Iqbal to produce what his father wrote about MGAQ… you might disown Allama Iqbal – a Qadiani save the last three years of his life- afterwards as well.

  42. bciv

    The state of Pakistan itself is in breach of its own laws – 295A – every time it prints a passport application form.

  43. yasserlatifhamdani

    precisely my thought this morning. I saw some case law on whether the state is an entity which can be charged under 295 A. Nothing conclusive.

  44. In his latest article in daily times, Ishtiaq Ahmad has again tried to distance the Ahmadiyya movement from Muslim league. I emailed him about the Iman AR Dard-Jinnah interactions in 1930s. According to Ishtiaq Ahmad, Jinnah could never be pursuaded by a “maulvi”..

  45. Pingback: The Myth of 1965 Victory - Indian View - Page 2

  46. Bin Ismail

    “…..In April 1933, on the occasion of Eid-ul Azha, Quaid-e Azam participated in a ceremony held at the Ahmadiyya Mosque London. This event was presided over by Sir Stewart Sandeman M.A.(Nairne Stewart Sandeman). Addressing the gathering Quaid-e Azam said that now India would make speedy progress, and that the proposals in the White Paper would not satisfy India and that India wanted complete independence. The gentleman presiding over the session differed with the Quaid’s views. Quaid-e Azam commenced his address with the following words: “The eloquent persuasion of the Imam (A.R. Dard) left me no escape”. This speech by Quaid-e Azam was meticulously covered by both the British and the Indian press. The Evening Standard (London), Hindu (Madras), The Statesman (Calcutta), Madras Mail (Madras), Pioneer (Allahabad), West Africa (Africa) and Egyptian Gazette (Alexandria) all covered this event.” [Ref: Encyclopedia Quaid-e Azam, page 780, by Zahid Hussain Anjum, published by Maqbool Academy]

  47. Bin Ismail

    @ Lutf (June 23, 2010 at 5:24 pm)

    When Jinnah himself admits, “ The eloquent persuasion of the Imam (A.R. Dard) left me no escape ”, then hypothetical arguments such as the one raised by Ishtiaq become quite meaningless.