Multiple Identities 1

By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Muhammad Ali Talpur and Ishtiaq Ahmed, in their articles in Daily Times, have addressed the issue of identity and nationhood in their serial articles in recent weeks which require careful review.  Addressing a very fundamental issue i.e. the interplay of identity with citizenship,  regrettably both gentlemen have turned the facts on their head and equally unfortunate is their appeal to each other’s authority on the subject which is neither here nor there.   
Therefore in this present series of articles,  I will strive to achieve two objectives – first to dispel some of the obvious historical fallacies and myths repeated by both of the aforementioned gentlemen and second to outline how identity or in our case multiple identities interact with the state and how ultimately the idea of a modern citizen- fundamentally a creature of constitution and law- in a state ought to be unfettered by considerations of nationalism or identity, be it racial or religious or linguistic,  as all of these are fundamentally the ideology of the other.
To start with I was struck with the irony of Mr. Talpur appealing to Nehru Report and Mr. Ahmed feigning rather a naive posture vis a vis the same document. Nehru Report was the first Indian response to the ill-advised Simon Commission.  The overtly racist Simon Commission, which had been denounced by Jinnah as the “butchery of our souls”, had not included even a single Indian in the constitution committee.   So then what was Jinnah’s position vis a vis the Nehru Report.   It will come as a surprise to those schooled in Pakistan but Jinnah was widely hailed as pro-Nehru Report non-Congress leader. Many a newspaper in Britain characterized Jinnah as a staunchly pro-Nehru and pro-Congress politician and these can be verified from various primary sources, including the three volume Collected Works of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, compiled by S S Peerzada.  Jinnah’s faction of the League was decidedly pro-Congress whereas Shafi faction was decidely pro-British.  The Shafi faction wanted to cooperate with the British and wanted to retain separate electorates at all costs.  Similarly other Muslim parties were closer to Shafi’s view than Jinnah’s.
Consequently Jinnah proposed four amendments to the Nehru Report in which he was ready to secure the Muslim acceptance of joint electorate provided there was a 33 percent reservation for Muslims and residuary powers would rest with the provinces.  Summary rejection of these very reasonable amendments forced Jinnah to re-state Muslim conference’s demands in the form of the famous 14 points.   The 14 points as such were a re-statement of federalist principle and significantly Jinnah left the door open for the eventual adoption of the joint electorate through the 5th point.  On the Hindu side, there was a division between Nehrus and Hindu Mahasabhites.   Nehrus, particularly the elder Nehru, wanted to come to an arrangement on the basis of Jinnah’s original four amendments.  Mahasabha would have none of it.   Nehru Report thus – despite its noble ideals- was formulated on the basis of a centralized form of government with residuary powers lying with the center, a rather unique concept for a federation. United States of America and Canada for example vest residuary powers with constituent units and not the center.  More than anything else, the Nehru Report broke down on the issue of residuary powers because otherwise both Jinnah and Motilal Nehru were flexible on the issue of communal representation.   Jinnah himself would have preferred the residuary powers to stay with the center but as the bridge-maker, the quintessential Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity,  he pleaded with with his comrades in Congress,  famously asking them if it was enough that Mr. Jinnah was in Congress’ pocket and whether it was not prudent to take all Muslims along?
Now herein lies the rub.  Mr. Talpur speaks of the Nehru Report while also championing the cause of Balochistan’s provincial rights. The main opposition to Nehru report did not come from Jinnah and other Muslim Leaguers but from those Muslims of Muslim majority regions who wanted the center to keep out of their affairs.   Jinnah and his faction of the League in turn had to support their demand to remain relevant.  The main opposition to the Nehru Report was the Punjab premier – Sir Fazle Hussain – and from Sir Muhammad Shafi.  Indeed these gentlemen emerged as the foremost opponents of Congress thesis as well as Jinnah.  Jinnah on the other hand was scorned by Muslims as being too “pro-Congress” and by Congress as being too “pro-Muslim”.
All of this obviously becomes quite meaningless when one considers that sidelining Jinnah and ignoring Congress,   the British bought the so called “Punjab thesis” and gave their communal award and subsequently the Government of India Act 1935, which was rejected by both the Congress and Jinnah’s Muslim League, but under which both parties contested the 1937 polls as allies. The League, which failed to do very well in Punjab and other Muslim majority areas, nevertheless emerged as the largest Muslim party in United Provinces with 29 seats.   Congress did remarkably well in most of what is now India but failed to win Muslim seats, winning a solitary seat in UP and adding one more to the tally in the bye elections.   It was – as several historians in India have noted-  the about face by Congress and its refusal to form a coalition ministry in UP that forced the League to look for alternatives and indeed territory that was hitherto unexplored : Muslim majority areas.
The real issue was the inability of the Congress party to break through its 19th century nation-state mould and deal with the ground realities of India, foremost of which was that the people of India had always had multiple identities of caste, region, religion, sect and tribe.  Jinnah as a young man too bought into the Congress thesis of one Indian nation.  However when Jinnah famously told Mountbatten “A Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim”,  he betrayed an instinctive understanding of what Benedict Anderson famously referred to as “imagined identity” and what we subjectively call nation. Thus the famous 11 August speech was not only a call for separation of religion and state, which was indicative of Jinnah’s classical liberalism,  but was also an attempt to draw a distinction between state and identity.
The issue is not of inclusive and exclusive nationalisms- that is just hogwash more suited to discussing European politics in the Bismarckian era- but the acceptance of the basic contract between state and citizen which ought to be based not on religious, national or any other parochial considerations but on the principle that any law abiding, tax paying citizen has vested in him or her certain inalienable rights of which equality before law and constitution is paramount.  This is what Jinnah was about.  This is the principle that his Pakistan needs to accept.
To be continued


Filed under Partition, secular Pakistan

33 responses to “Multiple Identities 1

  1. I have a problem with Ishtiaq Ahmad’s assertions that Ahmadiyya Community was neutral or not pro-Pakistan until the very last moment. This goes against the historic facts like drafting of Lahore resolution by Sir Zafrullah Khan.
    When I wrote to Ishtiaq Ahmad about the meetings between Jinnah and AR Dard of Fazl Mosque London (Ahmadiyya Imam) in early 1930s, Mr. Ahmed denied that such meetings could have taken place at all. This is despite the evidence which includes news reports in Sunday Times as well as pictures where Jinnah was speaking at Fazl Mosque before going back to India to join Muslim League.

    This to me is intellectual bigotry and should not go unchecked in this day and age.

  2. AZW


    Good point and I will be curious as to what Professor Ishtiaq Ahmad has to say about that.

    YLH, great narrative. Looking forward to the next part of this series.

    I would also submit that if Professor Ishtiaq wants to put his arguments forth, he is most welcome to post them here at PTH.

  3. YLH


    Ishtiaq Ahmed is an anti-ahmadiyya bigot as you say… but here it must be qualified… Ishtiaq Ahmed is an anti-Ahmadi bigot because he recognizes and is frustrated by the undying loyalty of the Ahmadi community to Pakistan despite all the bigotry and persecution, hailing as he does from the anti-Pakistan, anti-Jinnah, anti-League pro-Shorish Kashmiri camp. The Ahmadi attitude confuses him, frustrates him and angers him. He is an extremely vindictive fellow … he then uses his column to destroy history.

    He is obviously given quite push by the Hindutva crowd… especially the Bharat Rhakshak crowd… who worship him as a god.

    But he must realize at some point that lying about history does not do him any credit… and that traitors and fifth columnists like him ultimately get sorted out by history. Mir Ishtiaq will do well to remember the fate of Mir Sadiq.

    Meanwhile… it would be best if Ahmadi Muslims respond to Mir Ishtiaq’s treachery and bigotry directly as well.

  4. YLH



  5. Majumdar

    Why can’t we invite Prof Ahmed to not only write but also participate in debates here. Maybe he can clarify his stance on these matters in open debate.


  6. YLH

    Because frankly I – being a full time lawyer now more involved in commercial law- have no time to debate with a third rate loser and washed away “academic” who excels at distorting history.

  7. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    …..being a full time lawyer now more involved in commercial law…..

    I am sure your former employer won’t be too thrilled to hear this.


  8. yasserlatifhamdani

    The former employer wasted my talents for 4 years but paid me good money. So let us just call it even.

  9. An Ahmadi Muslim

    The more I read the articles the more respect I have for your understanding of the history in the light of what is transpiring in our time.

    You seem to be an open minded fella. With all due respect, I take the liberty of stating an observation, hoping not to be ‘flogged’. A sense of arrogance ans loss of decorum shows through the way you handle yourself on this forum, which is so unbecoming of a talented person like yourself. A history buff like must know that knowledge that does not impart humility becomes one’s undoing.

    Keep up with the much needed ‘doodh ka doodh and pani ka pani’ campaign for the sake of Pakistan. God bless.

  10. An Ahmadi Muslim

    .. and loss ..
    A history buff like yourself ..

  11. @An Ahmadi Muslim

    You are completely right. Yasser loses his temper far too often. However, you should know the full story.

    If we go through the older posts and comments and try to form a picture, we will find that YLH loses his temper at two kinds of people, and only on encountering very specific behaviour.

    You should know that he loses his temper typically with extremists of one religion or another, because they preach the vilest kind of hatred, sometimes openly, more often, hidden behind some crack-brained strategy or the other, usually one which is apparent only to him, one that irritates all readers far more than make any serious impact on them.

    This applies to Muslims and to Hindus alike, although on one famous occasion a Christian was the unfortunate recipient of both barrels. If anything, he tends to be easier on the Hindu bigots rather than the Muslims.

    The second thing is that he loses his temper with nuisances, trolls of both kinds, passers by with no intention of a serious contribution, those who read a smattering of the facts and then imagine it sufficient to cover the entire issue.

    There you are, then. A quick guide to all you don’t want to know about people losing their tempers. Enjoy.

  12. YLH

    “Knowledge that does not impart humility”

    Being a westernist, I have no desire to steep myself in Eastern religious thought and/or fake courtesy and hypocritical humility. I do not suffer fools gladly. It is therefore my pleasure – and an act of immense catharsis- to open a can of whoopass on them.

  13. Anil

    Yasser, what were “residuary powers”?

  14. Sahal

    Begum Liaqat Ali Khan wrote this in 1985.

    “During the past one year, Newspapers have reported murders of Ahmadi notables in mysterious circumstances. More recently, hundreds of arrests have been made of members of this peace loving Community. Those arrested have been reportedly subjected to physical torture, while the charge against them is usually that of wearing Kalima Tayabba badges. This situation deserves to be condemned forthrightly without any reservations. It is known history that while the Ahmadiyya Community supported the cause of Pakistan, most of Mullah Community, their present persecutors, opposed the creation of Pakistan tooth and nail. The two great Quaids, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, appreciated the contribution of Ahmadis towards the Muslim cause and recognised it by appointing Chaudhry Muhammad Zafrullah Khan as the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan. In those great days, Pakistan had not been reduced to a theocratic State, and not only Muslims, regardless of the auxiliary beliefs, but even Hindus, were given Cabinet posts. The rights of minorities and small groups were not paid just lip service, but were protected with deliberate effort.” (Daily Dawn, Karachi, July 10th 1985)

  15. Hayyer

    All discussions on this subject go about it from the Indian end, which is was, as we know not even half a century old when it was first bruited. The ‘Indian National’ Congress would have been inconceivable just 50 years prior to its birth, their being no Indian nation then.
    There was an India for the British whose borders stretched into the north and west and into the future as they won their battles, but the natives who became subjects of the British Crown only gradually came to think of themselves as Indian, and not all even now (I don’t mean Kashmir). The North West Provinces in 1830s comprised what is now UP.
    Nationality is a colonial phenomenon for us, not any the less real for all that, but discussion in the 21st century with its post colonial hindsight tends to miss the wood for the trees. Till Ranjit Singh’s empire there wasn’t even a Punjabi identity, and there is probably still isn’t outside of the Punjabi language. Vajra probably has a lot to say about Bengali nationalism as a precursor to Indian nationalism. Pakistani nationalism is a late comer to all this, originating in an incomplete Indian nationalism, carrying the burden of post- Indian confusions.
    I look forward to both to the second piece of this article and of Prof. Ishtiaque Ahmad’s.

  16. @Hayyer

    As I said somewhere else, that is essentially what happened roughly between the (much overblown but nevertheless clearly defined) Bengal Renaissance and the Partition of Bengal (or, as Bengalis self-importantly like to put it, their pedantry flying at full mast, The Partition of Bengal). It was this that set the tone, it was the arrest of Surendranath Bannerjee that set off hartals in Faizabad, Lucknow, Agra, Amritsar, Lahore, Pune – I had reproduced this precise list in the hope that it would show that a large section of the land outside Bengal was exercised by the issues raised by Surendranath’s arrest.

    The disenchantment of the Muslims occurred here, during this same movement against the Partition, their response was first in Dhaka, the formation of the Muslim League in 1906, before its hijacking to Lucknow, the formation of a secular yet Muslim-governed party under a unique man, a combination of deep Islamic faith and nationalist sentiment, all happened here before it spread sympathetically all over the rest of the country.

    As Hayyer puts it, it is worth remembering what ‘India’ was 150 years before independence; except for the three Presidencies, what else was there? No central education, no central post and telegraph, no central civil service (nor police), no railways, in fact, hardly anything other than the East India company’s Army, with young Lord Arthur Wellesley learning to pull his troops behind a slope, and to allow the enemy to attack first, and a strong sense of manifest destiny among India’s conquerors.

    A typical Hayyer intervention, a breath of fresh air, a dash of cold water in the face.

  17. ved

    It is historical fact that India was never united except in the period of Ashoka, Akbar and Aurangzeb then in British period. It was so vast and diverse that it was almost impossible to conquer and rule from a single point, so wisely Samudra gupata and Alauddin Khilzi had attacked Southern India but never ruled permanently.

    But it was also true for Germany and Italy before 18th century. They were divided, quarreled with each other and ruled by foreigners, either by Romans, Austro-Hungarians or subsequently by France. It is feeling of shared culture, common sufferings, common language and occupying same geographical area etc but in India’s case it is mostly feeling of to be together despite differences made it possible to be a modern nation state.

    India is so diverse that Congress leaders and especially Neharu and Patel thought it imprudent to accept a decentralized government at Delhi and residuary powers with state which can push this new born nation into chaos and balkanized it.

  18. ved

    It is feeling of shared culture, common sufferings, common language and occupying same geographical that aroused them to be a modern nation state.

  19. Chote Miyan

    “Nationality is a colonial phenomenon for us, not any the less real for all that, but discussion in the 21st century with its post colonial hindsight tends to miss the wood for the trees.”

    Nationality, as we understand today, is considered a relatively modern phenomenon even for people outside our subcontinent. The question was about the choices one had going forward. It’s academic to support one’s thesis by referring to the History. You can pick and choose. For Nehru, it was the center heavy construct that appealed the best. It would be a little contradictory to wish for a modern nation state and then leave out one of the defining characteristics(whether good or bad), i.e., nationalism out of that paradigm. If, on the other hand, you are talking about India as an entity, I can quote various instances where it was defined, even if loosely. Conversely, I understand that you can also quote references which can refute my claim. It also, of course, depends on the timeline we are talking about. To a person living bang in the middle of the reign of Aurangzeb, or Ashoka, India or Hindustan would have meant something else. Today, for most of us, India is defined by its current boundaries. Who knows what may happen 100 years from now.

  20. what ‘India’ was 150 years before independence; except for the three Presidencies, what else was there? No central education, no central post and telegraph, no central civil service (nor police), no railways,

    150 years before Independence was 1797, and Stephenson’s locomotive first ran July 15, 1814. The first telegraph dates to 1837.

    Err…it’s about India, stupid.

    Just sayin’…

  21. Hayyer

    chote miyan:

    The discussion on this thread is identity, a topic of endless possibilities. Nationality is an aspect of identity I think not the other way. My passport says I am an Indian but not my driving license, and if I were to apply for a job under the reserved quota I would need to produce a piece of paper showing my caste entitlement. In the marriage market on the other hand my name could be my identity even if I did not have a piece of paper to prove it. Nandan Nilekani’s ID card will have much to play with, but not nationality. It won’t say I’m sure that chote miyan is a Bihari Kayasth (probably) of some obscure gotra, or mention his horoscope configuration. Also, it won’t say that he is Indian. It may focus on his name, Pan number and address, and probably, date of birth. Enough identity you might say-but it would leave much out. I can imagine those fellows scratching their heads and eventually seeking approval of the Government of India about what constitutes a sufficiency of identity for a modern Indian. Whatever they decide it won’t be enough, but definitely pc.

    Pakistani nationalism as an aspect of Pakistani identity carries the hangover of a united India. Whatever obscure elements were thrown together in the recipe to create the Indian in the second half of the 19th century are in all there struggling to express their individual flavours. We think we can savour the main notes but every so often some new condiment announces itself. In India we live with whatever confection our nationalists produced, accepting as inclusive and wide a definition of Indian as can be possible. We agree that Mizos, Malayali Muslims and western Tibetans in Ladakh are all Indian. We don’t agonize over the ingredients of our recipe. A lot goes into making a haggis, but for the uninitiated it is best not to look too closely at what is on his plate.
    Pakistani identity is problematic because definitions must begin by taking out bits and pieces from the pre-partition Indian formula. A new recipe is required- and the cook asks himself as he sets out ‘what bits can I throw out’?
    So, -an Islamic republic; yes, but it doesn’t taste right because there is some non Islamic grit there, and is that what Jinnah wanted? Not Punjabi, Sindhi etc because regional is not what Pakistan is about. And then the purists chip in and say, surely not Ahmadi because they are not Muslim; and so on, till nothing is left of the mixture. There has been talk of Indus man but that doesn’t cover the case either.
    India started out as someone else’s idea that we adopted. Pakistan’s origin though is entirely an indigenous idea, and it is also probably a work still in progress, which is why the concept is still being defined.

  22. ved

    Pakistan’s dilemma about its identity crisis lies in its futile endeavor to find otherness from India to that they don’t want to claim/accept the cultural and historical legacy/realty of Indian Subcontinent.

    If they do that then they have to recognize other historical facts such as Indus valley civilization was the creation of Indians (Dravidian’s) who were prototype Hindus worshiping mother nature, that Taxila where oldest university was once flourished was founded by Takshak, son of Bharat brother of Rama, that Punjab which once also called Sapt Saindhav were the place where Ramayana and Mahabharata were recited first time etc.

    Pakistan’s claim of identity from Arabs does not suit their cultural, physical and mental orientation, which is very much like Indian.

    If they just forget about the otherness from India and accept that their forefathers were Hindus/Buddhists and so these culture belongs to them, that they follows Indian version of Islam, that Pakistan is an extended part of older India where Muslims of Indian subcontinent constructed their dream home then every thing will fall inline.

    It happens everywhere, when any son wants to part away from parents, it was given a portion of house, that does not mean that he has left and parted away from the legacy of his father too.

  23. yasserlatifhamdani

    That last bit is my idea of Pakistan.

    Pakistan is an Indian country… an independent sovereign free Indian state.

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

  24. Hayyer

    Don’t give other Indians similar ideas.

  25. yasserlatifhamdani

    Pakistan’s government is on the record objecting to appropriation of the word India exclusively the Indian Union. See Governor General of Pakistan’s letter to Governor General of India August 26, 1947 from memory.

  26. ved

    “Don’t give other Indians similar ideas”

    If somebody from India or Pakistan learns something new from PTH and explores new ideas or changes the way of traditional thinking, it should be taken as complements rather deriding him or searching for winners or losers on the topic or showing upmanship, It is this fallacy of Indian and Pakistani politicians which actually led them of not accepting anything however they right may be.

  27. yasserlatifhamdani

    Let us bury the hatchet …let us learn from South America in this respect …they seem to have developed a healthy common and mutual respect for each other’s existence…. Let us accept each other as independent Indian nations …. Let us stop questioning history and trying to one up on each other on whether creation of Pakistan was right or wrong ? What kinda stupid question is that ? Why not question the founding of every nation state and other political entities since time immemorial… You show me a state and I’ll show you communal and/or ethnic conflict that created it.

    Let us develop new multiple identities and accept old ones, as Pakistanis and Indians, as South Asians, punjabis, sindhis, gujuratis etc Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc…let us build bridges and let us forgive our Baba, Taya, Chacha for their mistakes… And work harmoniously in the 21st century.

  28. @YLH

    It’s good to read you saying that, since the trend of thought you initiated in these discussions, that the Two Nation Theory met the needs of Muslims who sought to protect their identity, but did not extend far enough, and needed modification to cover other South Asian minorities, leads squarely to this conclusion that you have just articulated.

    We need to ask ourselves, what after the Two Nation Theory? How do we deal with the aftermath, the discovery of other, hitherto submerged identities in Pakistan, the articulation and Passion of those identities in India that didn’t make the cut, as the Muslims did? How should inclusive states like Pakistan and India deal with minority issues, Stalin’s famous Nationality issues, in a coherent and systematic way, instead of waiting to get engulfed in crisis and then reacting?

    These were questions waiting to be asked, rather, which have been asked but never quite satisfactorily contextualised and dealt with in context.

  29. Hayyer

    I would like as a first step, following this revised doctrine, for Pakistanis restaurants abroad to stop claiming that they serve Pakistani dishes. Also, Bangladeshis to stop claiming that their churned up stuff is Indian. Re. Vajra comments above he must find a way while navigating through those weighty issues to steer Sylhetis to edible versions of North Indian food.
    Let us also agree that it is the Indian sub-continent we live in, and some Kashmiris might now accept that they are Indian too.
    I should also like to be allowed to wear a salwar suit without being asked why I wear Pakistani clothes and to claim that Arif Lohar is an Indian group.
    Beware, we shall soon appropriate everything Pakistani- and then where will you be?

  30. yasserlatifhamdani

    The problem with that is simply this: Pakistani is an identity which at this point needs all the help it can. So it is a buffet approach. We are Pakistani…but we are part of the Indian civilization.

  31. @Hayyer

    Teaching a Sylheti to cook is beyond me and my fourteen immediate predecessors, on both sides of the family. The swill they turn out is revenge for not having been clubbed with Cachar and thus left behind in East Bengal. Their calling themselves and their ‘cuisine’ (a light, tinkling laugh indicative of a droll usage is called for at this point) Tandoori or Indian is a deliberate act of war, what is nowadays known as MOOTW.

    After eating their mess, one understands why one’s elders looked askance at Sylheti ancestry when looking for grooms and brides.

    Sorry, get someone else; this ‘volunteer’ just unvolunteered.

  32. ved

    Indians have adopted what we may call an Islamic way of life. If you think for Salwar and Kurta, better you go to Punjab and Hariyana, they wear it wholeheartedly and nobody have any objections. In UP their is famous Aligarhi payjama and Churidar Payjama and I don’t think they are creation of any Hindus. For taste we boast of many mughalai dishes such as Tandoori roti, Murg musallam, shahi paneer, kababs etc. These all dishes plus many more things which were imports from Central Asia, Iran and Arabs came with immigrants in the time of Sultanate/Mughal period, we had adopted and never questioned for their origin or originator. So like wise Pakistani should also lay claim on not only Mughal culture but what they thought is beyond Sultanate period whether it is early medieval or ancient period. When this happens, the crisis of identity automatically will wither away.

  33. Hayyer

    My dear Ved,

    I spend most of my time in Punjab/Haryana.
    The tandoor which is an oven absent in the rest of India is not Moghlai. I have not researched the roti, In Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan we’ve always eaten rotis because rice cultivation was impossible except in a few irrigated pockets, till the canal system and tubewell irrigation. Northern rice eaters were all Kashmiri. But over there they have, or had ‘original Hindu bakers’ and Pandits who ate rotis made of rice, with walnuts and salt tea, if you please. Central Asian? Possibly-Mughlai? Definitely not.
    Shahi paneer is like that other abomination ‘butter chicken’ a creation of Delhi after 1947. Kebabs are not Mughal in origin. Murgh Musallam originates in UP. They also invented that miracle, the ‘Dal Bokhara’.
    If you ever visit Iran, Turkey, Dubai or Afghanistan or any central Asian country you are unlikely to find any kind of local meal similar to your conceptions of Mughlai food. Even the kebabs taste different.
    I am happy to challenge all those culinary experts who claim lineage of their creations from central Asia or Persia. The names don’t matter. Kabab, kofta, aab gosht, murgh, gosht, qorma, etc. The names are imported but the objects imported were soon transmuted, and are now as Mughlai as the Mughlai Paratha of Kolkata.