Did Jinnah Want Pakistan?

By Yasser Latif Hamdani
This is partly a continuation of my earlier article “Was Jinnah secular?” but mainly a response to a letter posted by Moin Ansari addressed to Mr. Najam Sethi called “refuting Mr Sethi’s blasphemy” in response to a TV show the latter did on the distortion of history in Pakistan.
Ahrari Fifth Columnist Moin Ansari is from a breed of self appointed Pakistani McCarthyites who abuse and attack anyone who tries to point out some facts about the creation of Pakistan. All of his “evidence” is usually badly sourced, or is selectively quoted. Those quotes trying to argue that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state have been addressed in the aforesaid “Was Jinnah secular” article, especially the misquoted Karachi Bar Association speech that seems to have captured the imagination of every Ziaist Islamist and right wing religio-fascist of Mr. Ansari’s camp. For a discussion on that please feel free to join that thread.
Mr. Sethi, whatever his flaws real or perceived, is an extremely honest and a very responsible journalist and analyst who has kept up a good fight for reason and commonsense as a Pakistani in a society increasingly hostile to all common sense and rationality. His analyses on current affairs, history and law as aired by Duniya TV are always on the mark and one can only thank god that there is someone who is holding the fort against the idiocy and stupidity that is commonplace in our country. For these reasons and many more I consider Najam Sethi a much greater patriot of Pakistan that jokers, crooks, cranks and madmen like Moin Ansari, Zaid Hamid, Ahmad Quraishi, Shireen Mazari and other jokers who are loose on the internet and in the media. It is therefore sad that motives are ascribed to Mr. Sethi and he is abused as a “pro-American journalist” and a traitor.
Most people of a below average intellect- like Moin Ansari mian- can seldom comprehend the extraordinary political achievement of the man we rightly call Quaid-e-Azam. Jinnah played his cards in a masterly fashion and managed to project unity where there was none. Fundamental to Pakistan’s identity crisis is the national confusion surrounding the Two Nation Theory, which is hailed as the ideological foundation of the state of Pakistan. It is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern history, both in terms of what it claimed and how it has been applied by various currents in our history.

India and Pakistan do not disagree on what they consider the essentials of the theory, but while in India it is a symbol of exclusivism and communalism, in Pakistan it is part of the Islamic ideological narrative. Narrowminded and nearsighted bigots like Moin Ansari, supporters of General Zia and fascists of Mussolini’s calibre have ensured that Pakistan remains wedded to a historical untruth.  Contrary to their misinterpretation of the Pakistan movement, the Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition. What Jinnah was aiming for was what in recent years has been coined as ‘consociationalism’, a power sharing between disparate ethnic and communal groups in multinational and multiethnic states. Though the term was coined only a decade or so ago, consociationalism as a political system is quite old and is tried and tested in states like The Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada.

When the Quaid-e-Azam articulated the Two Nation Theory, he referred to language, culture, family laws and historical antecedents. He was, as an adroit lawyer, making the case for changing the status of a minority to that of a nation and not for separation of Islam from India as is alleged by his detractors. On the Muslim side the first articulation of the two nation theory came from the famous Muslim modernist, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who decided after the experience of Urdu-Hindi controversy of 1867 that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations, and were like two eyes of India, who should have sovereign parity. When Congress was founded by A O Hume (1885), Sir Syed Ahmed Khan persuaded most of the Muslims not to join the Congress Party because he felt the Muslims were not ready educationally socially, and politically to face the Hindu community in the mainstream of politics yet. He was supported in these views by other Muslim modernists of the time like Syed Ameer Ali. The two nation theory finally reached a culmination in the form of the separate electorates which were demanded by a delegation of the Muslim elite, and intelligentsia in their meeting with Viceroy Minto. Lord Curzon’s partition of Bengal was also on the same lines. Partition of Bengal was annulled due to Swadeshi movement.

The All India Muslim League was founded in 1906 with the express purpose of safeguarding Muslim interests in a united India. Like the Congress Party, it started off as a party loyal to British Government. By 1913, the League was persuaded by Mohammed Ali Jinnah of the Congress Party to abandon its pro-British stance and assume a stance which was more in line with the Congress. He was unable however to budge the league on its stance on separate electorates. In 1916 Mohammed Ali Jinnah managed to bring together the League and the Congress on one platform working together for the Independence of India. During the Khilafat Movement and the non-cooperation movement, the League became sidelined when Gandhi led Congress went over the league and made alliances with the Khilafat Conference and Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind, two radically Islamic organizations agitating for the safeguard of the Islamic institution of Khilafat.

By 1928 there were two factions of the Muslim League… Pro-British faction lead by Sir Muhammad Shafi and the Pro-Congress faction led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. After Jinnah’s brief exit from all India politics in 1931, the League virtually ceased to exist. By 1935 the beleaguered leaguers were clamouring for Jinnah to come back. In 1935 Jinnah emerged out of his self-imposed exile to reorganize the league. With the exit of Shafi, Jinnah had a free hand, and from 1935-1937 Jinnah and the League were the staunchest supporters of the efforts of the Congress Party inside and outside the central legislative body.

1930 in Allahabad, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal presiding over the league session, first gave the idea of a Muslim state in the northwest of India within or without the British India. He was clearly talking about an autonomous Muslim Province within the union. This idea had hitherto been unarticulated, but it was already there in many different forms. The demand for autonomy had always been there in the North West, and Iqbal was only giving it a more concrete picture. Iqbal’s concern was clearly the Muslim Majority areas, and not the muslims in Hindu majority areas. Hence Iqbal’s view was in contradiction to the officially stated League position.

By 1933 Rahmat Ali, a student at Cambridge University, came out with an eccentric scheme which he called ’Pakistan : Our Fatherland’. Later that year he tried to enlist Mohammed Ali Jinnah, then in England, for this cause. Jinnah dismissed this idea as a mere dream, earning forever the wrath of Ch. Rahmat Ali.

The first elections held under the Government of India act 1935 saw Congress emerging as the majority party. It won 711 out of total of 1585 seats, and could form government in 5/11 provinces without the support of any party. Out of these 711 seats only 26 seats were Muslim seats, thereby increasing Congress’s reliance on local Hindu leaders, which allowed for their agenda to be imposed on the Congress.

Muslim League on the other hand did well on the Muslim seats in the Hindu Majority provinces winning 29 out of 35 seats in the UP. The league however couldn’t do well against the regional parties in Muslim Majority areas. The Congress refused to come to an arrangement with the Muslim League, choosing instead Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind for partnership through Azad. This was a death blow to the League and its leadership who were at this point decidedly pro-Congress. On 22nd December 1939, League and its allies, the Scheduled Caste Federation and Justice Party of the Tamil Nadu, celebrated the day of deliverance from Congress rule.

Nehru-Jinnah Correspondence is especially vital in this regard. Nehru had mocked the League as an elitist organization and asked Jinnah to ’depend on the league’s inherent strength’. Jinnah had responded in kind informing Nehru that from now on he would only depend on his inherent strength. As a Historian rightly observed:

“More than Iqbal, it was Nehru who charted a new mass strategy for the League, prodding and challenging Jinnah to leave the drawing rooms of politics to reach down to the hundred million muslims… There was ofcourse only one possible way for the league to stir that mass, to awaken it and lure it to march behind Muslim leadership”

The League leadership had realized through experience with Congress, that in order to make good on its claim of representation of South Asian Muslims, it would need to rally the Muslim Majority areas behind it. In order to do that it required a slogan which would be vague enough to bring an overwhelming mass of the Muslim majority areas behind the league. Jinnah started by luring the regional politicians into his fold. First came Sikandar Hayat of Punjab, and soon to follow him was FazlulHaq of Bengal. Soon the regional parties who had defeated the league in the elections were ready to come under the league’s banner.
League’s transformation was complete in 1940 when it adopted Iqbal’s slogan of separate Muslim majority state(s). The two men who moved this resolution were the new entrants into the League, Sikandar Hayat and FazlulHaq. The Lahore Resolution presented a vague demand which did not specify the nature of the Muslim majority state(s). No references were made to Islam, and the issue presented was a cultural one instead of a religious one. Needless to say this resolution was in contradiction to the stated objective of the league as it did not aspire to solve the problems of League’s real constituents, the Muslims in Hindu Majority areas.

The name Pakistan was imposed on the League by the Congress press, and the League leadership after initial protestations accepted it. Elections of 1945-1946 saw Muslim League sweep the Muslim vote. The turn around was miracle in the Muslim Majority areas. In Sindh and Bengal the league had enough seats to form ministries of their own. In NWFP and Punjab it still turned out to be the largest single party, but was upstaged in the assembly by coalition ministries of Congress/Khudai khidmatgars in NWFP, and the Unionist Party in Punjab.

Having won 445 out of a total 490 Muslim seats, the League was now able to lay exclusive claim to speaking for the Muslims of India.

In view of the election results of 1946 the British Government dispatched a high level Cabinet Mission to look into a workable plan which was acceptable to the two major parties of India i.e. Congress and the League. After its deliberations with the League and the Congress it presented a series of proposals which included the ’grouping scheme’. The grouping scheme allowed for a three tiered federation between Hindu and Muslim provinces, with the center only keeping issues of Defence/Foreign, Currency and communication with itself.

This plan was accepted by the Muslim League at Jinnah’s insistence, and provisionally accepted by the Congress Party. However in July of 1946 Nehru dropped a bombshell when he declared that the Congress was not bound by any agreements and that it would decide the fate of India in the constituent assembly itself. This forced Jinnah to back out of his ealier agreement on the basis of the Cabinet Mission plan. Wavell’s letter to Pethick Lawrence is revealing:

“The strong reaction by Gandhi to my suggestion that Congress should make their assurance about the grouping categorical shows how well justified Jinnah was to doubt their previous assurances on the subject. It is to my mind convincing evidence that Congress always meant to use their position in the interim Government to break up the Muslim League and in the constituent assembly to destroy the grouping scheme which was the one effective safeguard for the muslims’

(Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, Mansergh, Transfer of power Page 323)

Muslim League and its leadership had hoped that by keeping the Pakistan demand vague, and by using the veto, the League will be able to bring Congress to accede to their demands at the center, thereby coming to a final settlement with the League with respect to the future of the Muslims within the Indian Union. Muslim League’s hopes were dashed by the Viceroy’s partition June 3rd Plan. Jinnah had initially refused, but Mountbatten made it clear to him that either he accepted the partition plan or picked up his cards and left. The next morning, Jinnah, hesitantly nodded, and what happened afterwards is history.

Pakistan did not fulfill Muslim League’s agenda. Its real constituents were the Indian Muslims, whose problems Pakistan didn’t solve. Hence Muslim League’s strategy failed, and Jinnah was handed a Pakistan he never wanted. The truth is that Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was not predicated on the partition of India. His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus. His Two Nation Theory did not, at least not until December 1946, suggest that the Hindus and Muslims must be separated. And yet, even in May 1947, Jinnah was pleading against the partition of Punjab and Bengal by arguing that a Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim.

Much of what Jinnah actually wanted is confirmed by one of the most extraordinary pieces of prescience left behind by H V Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in India in 1941. Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a “Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India. It was also a vehicle to get parochial elements in Muslim majority provinces into line behind the Muslim League at the All India Centre. At the very least, Jinnah’s Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition, secession from or division of United India. This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which did not even deliver 50 percent of what he had demanded. In the end, however, the idea of power sharing with the League and Muslims was too much for the Indian National Congress to gulp, even if Gandhi and Nehru could have been brought around to the idea. Maulana Azad’s grudging admissions in his book India Wins Freedom seal this argument.

It must be remembered that while almost all religious Islamic parties opposed Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Communist Party of India — that most secular and non-communal institution in South Asian polity — wholeheartedly supported the Muslim League and the Pakistan Movement during the 1940s. P C Joshi, one of the tallest leaders of the Communist Party, wrote, explaining the communist position: “We were the first to see and admit a change in its character when the League accepted complete independence as its aim and began to rally the Muslim masses behind its banner. We held a series of discussions within our party and came to the conclusion in 1941-1942 that it had become an anti-imperialist organisation expressing the freedom urge of the Muslim people that its demand for Pakistan was a demand for self-determination…A belief continues to be held that the League is a communal organisation and that Mr Jinnah is pro-British. But what is the reality? Mr Jinnah is to the freedom loving League masses what Gandhi ji is to the Congress masses…This is so because Mr Jinnah has done to the League what Gandhi did to the Congress in 1919-1920 i.e. made it a mass organisation.”

The Communist Party not only supported the Muslim League, but also gave its own people like Sajjad Zaheer, Abdullah Malik and Daniyal Latifi to the League. Daniyal Latifi, who was trained in law by Jinnah himself, authored the Punjab Muslim League’s manifesto for the 1945-1946 elections, which was one of the most progressive manifestos in the history of this region. But the point is that the League’s entire election campaign in the 1945-1946 elections was stage managed in Punjab by the Communist Party of India. They would not have done so if they had thought the League was operating on a narrow communal or theocratic agenda.


Filed under History, Jinnah, Jinnah's Pakistan, Pakistan

266 responses to “Did Jinnah Want Pakistan?

  1. query

    Pakistan was created in order to protect muslim interests or islam’s interests? Are (can) the two (be) identical? And what did the supposed fighter for minority rights do for the minorities in his own new-won land? Have the hindus exterminated muslims anywhere or have the muslims exterminated hindus from many regions? Have the muslims committed demographic and territorial aggression against hindus or the other way round (taking into consideration specially the last 1400 years)?

  2. Ali K Chishti

    Great piece!
    The word, “Pakistan” was used as a political blackmailing tool post, 1940 to get maximum rights for Muslims of Indian sub-continent. Jinnah Sahib who was indeed a man of integrity could never have imagined opting out to make another union and hence, he signed the Cabinet Mission Plan in June, 1946.
    The idea just backfired after Nehru-Patel’s tactful refusal which forced a real, “Gandhian” and non-violent person like Jinnah to call for ‘Direct Action’ in August, 1947. So in all reality, Pakistan was forced and thrust upon IML and Jinnah.

  3. Does what Jinnah wanted matter today? Pakistan is a done deal. I would think what Pakistanis want today matters much much more.

    BTW, your mention of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad brings back memories. He’s one of the heroes of the freedom struggle in Indian school history textbooks. It also brings back names of Lala Lajpat Rai, Sarojini Naidu, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, long lost in the fogs of one’s childhood memories. All of them covered as Indian national heroes in our textbooks. I’m curious if these folks are covered at all in Pakistani textbooks? They were involved in the freedom movement long before the partition fiasco.

  4. Samachar

    Right, we get into the Hadithology of Jinnah. Whether Jinnah meant what he said in public requires some kind of oracular facility, so that e.g., Jinnah did mean his August 11, 1947 speech, but did not mean what he said below.

    “Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.” So Jinnah chose to say what he said below and chose to be misunderstood.

    The Mussalmans should not be afraid of being crushed by the Hindu majority provinces. Let us in the minority provinces, Mr Jinnah said, “face our fate, but free the Muslim Majority provinces to live and form their own government in independent states in according with Islamic laws.” (A.P.)

    Speech at a public meeting
    Ahmedabad, Dec 27, 1940.
    The Civil & Military Gazette, Dec 29, 1940

    The second objection which concerns Muslim minorities has no force. As a self-respecting people, we in the Muslim minority provinces say boldly that we are prepared to undergo every suffering and sacrifice for the emancipation and liberation of our brethren in regions of Muslim majority. By standing in their way and dragging them along with us into a united India we do no in any way improve our position. Instead we reduce them also to the position of a minority. But we are determined that, whatever happens to us, we are not going to allow our brethren to be vassalised by the Hindu majority. But the fact is that the creation of these independent states will be the surest guarantee for the fair treatment of the minorities. When the time for consultation and negotiations comes the case of the Muslim in the minority province will certainly not go by default.

    Speech at the meeting of the Muslim University Union
    Aligarh, March 10, 1941.
    “Pakistan, The Muslim Charter” published by Shakir Husain Khan, Secretary, M.U.S. Union
    Aligarh, M.U. Press, Aligarh, 1941.

    Speaking about the fate of Muslims in the non-Pakistan zone, Mr. Jinnah said that in order to liberate 7 crores of Muslims where they were in a majority he was willing to perform the last ceremony of martyrdom if necessary and let two crores of Muslims be smashed.

    Address to the Cawnpore Muslim Students Federation Conference
    Cawnpore (Kanpur) March 30, 1941
    The Civil Military Gazette, April 1, 1941
    & The Star of India, April 1, 1941

    — This is what Jinnah was saying in public. YLH tells us Jinnah did not mean it.

  5. YLH

    The problem with you Guptas from NJ is that you people don’t get the argument in the very least. I have answered your ridiculous comments in the previous article “Was Jinnah secular”.

    Are you suggesting that Jinnah should have said “psst …but you know I am just saying this as a bargaining counter?” I mean your argument makes no sense Sadna bibi.

    And it not YLH alone saying it. Every serious historian is also saying the same thing.

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

  6. Samachar

    Ram Jethmalani tells us about the National Conference in Jammu & Kashmir:

    The National Conference, on 30 September 1944 had unanimously approved the manifesto of what was called “New Kashmir”. The section dealing with citizenship required that all the people of Jammu and Kashmir state be guaranteed freedom of conscience and of worship. It further laid down that no citizen should be arrested or detained except by decision of a court of law. All citizens would have the right to receive guaranteed work and the right to rest. All students were to have the right to receive education and scholarships were to be given to deserving poor students. Women citizens would be accorded equal rights with men in all fields of national life, and law should give special protection to the interests of mother and child.

    The manifesto also required that the highest legislature of the state, the National Assembly, be elected by citizens of the state by electoral districts on the basis of one deputy per 40,000 persons for a period of five years. The Council of Ministers of the state should be responsible to the National Assembly. Section 27 of the manifesto required the position of the ruler to be reduced to that of a constitutional head.


    Such a manifesto could not be prepared by the All India Muslim League either before independence or by Jinnah in the months remaining to him after independence.

    Why was the party in a relatively backward state able to do what an all-India party was unable to do?

    Why do we have to read through masses of ambiguous or contradictory statements to try to figure out Jinnah’s intentions? His fear of being misunderstood? What is there to misunderstand about “we Muslims of minority provinces do not want to drag the majority provinces into a united India”? (but privately claim, “I want a confederation, but it will be misunderstood?”)

    There is no consistency in Jinnah; he is the master of ambiguity. The only way to build a consistent Jinnah is to quote selectively.

  7. Karun

    YLH the problem with your view is that its too simplistic, too black and white, I bet there are lots of shades of gray in the character/decision/politics of Mr. Jinnah

  8. YLH

    Once again going in circles. That Jinnah had to maintain a level of ambiguity in the hey day of the Pakistan Movement is a moot point. The issue being discussed is very different. Besides only an idiot – Pakistani or Indian – will suggest that ambiguous Eid messages or public speeches made by a politician take precedence over an inaugural speech by a Governor General, President of a constituent Assembly and the founding father of a nation.

    I am not sure what National Conference’s manifesto has to do with anything … typical NJ Gupta tactic… but perhaps you haven’t read Muslim League’s manifesto with which it went into the 1937 elections and then Punjab Muslim League’s manifesto in the 1946 elections or the manifesto of the Bengal League…

    Not only was the League committed to universal adult suffrage, independence, freedom of speech equality etc but one may even think that it was an outright socialist party…

    In both Sindh and Bengal … the League’s movement was spearheaded by peasant nationalism for example. Bengal’s Abul Hashim is well known. But perhaps you should learn more about Masood Khadarposh… a communist Muslim Leaguer – who on Jinnah’s direct orders and instructions- organised workers committees in Sindh… and his work was disrupted by none other than Sardar Patel of the Congress and his cronies in Sindh who was supporting Hindu industrialists and landowners… another interesting little fact about the so called progressive Congress that is missed out by most people.

    So please get a life. This article is not addressed to crooks and cranks from across the border. It is addressed to our own crooks and cranks for a change.

  9. YLH

    “YLH the problem with your view is that its too simplistic, too black and white, I bet there are lots of shades of gray in the character/decision/politics of Mr. Jinnah”

    On the contrary that I have driven home above. You can see the positions taken by Samachar, Moin mian and others… and compare them to the position I have taken. It becomes clear who is simplistic and in black and white.

  10. YLH


    Your post has been removed as it is merely an attack on me which I can allow to be posted but then when I respond in kind people like you start whining. You are not welcome to post here.

    As for Jinnah … even Nehru, his most vociferous critic, described him as free of opportunism and without the lure of office. I am not even going to quote what Ambedkar and H V Hodson etc have to say about him.\

    Unless you are brain dead, which might be the case, it is clear that whose posts have merit and whose don’t.

  11. Talha

    Mountbatten’s personal secretary Pandit Nehru ruined the day.

    Too busy with the Mountbattens I guess.

  12. Pankaj

    Nehru and Patel wanted a strong central government and Jinnah wanted an experiment to be conducted for 10 years to see whether power sharing between Hindus and Muslims works practically or not.

    Jinnah wanted a confederation with a weak central government and a right to secede after 10 years

    Nehru and Patel wanted a final arrangement .No ifs and buts after 10 years.

    SO Congress and Muslim league had different ideas of post independent India

    Partition was inevitable .

    No large country as India can function with such massive uncertainity ie whether India will remain intact or not after 10 years.

    If jinnah’s plan would have been accepted then India would have been further partitioned into many parts.

    Partition ensured minimum damage to India’s territorial integrity .
    The loss of live was though regrettable .

    But a bigger partition say in 1957 would have led to more bloodshed and violence

  13. Samachar

    Even today the Communist Party of India shows a greater devotion to China’s interests than to India’s. To read into Communist Party support of the Muslim League any compatibility with Indian unity, nationalism or secularism is not going to convince any but members of the CPI.

  14. YLH

    Ok so now we are shifting the argument to why Communist Party of India is bad… because well you don’t have an argument do you.

  15. Tilsim

    Partition did become sadly inevitable. It shows the practical limitations of secular leadership and secular ideals where the masses can easily be lead by appeals to emotion.

    It appears what was not generally forseen were the limitations and dangers of a theocratic state – and now specially one that is morphing along Wahabi lines. This is the central bone of contention between the Nazaria e Pakistan crowd and the people who advocate a non-theocratically based setup.

    The danger of a theocratic state was definitely there given the role that Mullahs were playing in all of this. No doubt that the politicians played their role too in playing with the sentiments of the masses. Unfortunately Jinnah himself argued his case in different ways as a lawyer and politician in the run-up to partition and this gave ample scope for the obscurantist forces to claim him for themselves. Now, the real and multifaceted QA has been airbrushed in Pakistan as a pious muslim who fought for an Islamic state to suit the world view of these forces.

    These type of articles and scholarship are important to bring balance to the reading of Pakistan’s history, birth and raison d’etre. In my view, this is not an argument that can be settled decisively. It is just important that people know that there is a different point of view to that of the Nazaria e Pakistan crowd; that there was also another vision for what Pakistan might be and that it is still relevant today.

  16. Pankaj

    @ Tilsim

    Pakistan could have easily developed as a moderate Islamic nation like Malaysia and Turkey.

    The present situation was NOT inevitable.

    Islamic fundamentalism was deliberately injected after 1971 to keep the country together . And to get “free” soldiers for kashmir jihad.

  17. query

    to pankaj

    how dare you say pakistan made mistakes? you are jealous of their glories and glorious achievements.

    Malaysia and Turkey as moderate Islamic nations?

    Forget it. They are very obscurantist and ethno-fascstic in their core.

    After Kashmir is solved as per Pakistan’s needs and wishes Pakistan will find new reasons to hate India and incite against India. Let there be no doubt about that.

  18. Hayyer

    This is a well written, concise and accurate summation of what Jinnah wanted. The paean to the Indian Communist Party is unnecessary, and in fact is a bit of grit that goes against the flow of the article.
    The communists were, in those days taking their cues from the CPSU. After Hitler invaded the USSR the communists became ardent supporters of the ‘great patriotic war’ and consequently of any party not opposing the British. Post hoc rationalization is the forte of communists in India. You can hear them rationalizing Chinese occupation of Tibet and opposing Indian association with the US because it would affect China adversely, even if it benefits India, and they have no qualms in saying such things openly.

  19. Kashif Jahangiri

    If the interpretation that the “Two Nation Theory” meant creating a wall between Hindus and Muslims is accepted, then the following questions would need to be answered.

    Why did Muslim League accept the Cabinet Mission in 1946?

    What did Jinnah mean when he said the following in his address to the Constituent Assembly on 11 August 1947?

    “We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish….. you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”

    It is not disputed that Mr. Jinnah was a lawyer of the highest calibre. I am sure he knew what he was saying and he had carefully chosen his words before making such an important speech. If Mr. Jinnah understood the “Two Nation Theory” in the same context as some want us to believe, then I am sure he would not have said the above.

    Why did Jinnah choose a Hindu to write the National Anthem for Pakistan?

    Why did Jinnah appoint a Hindu as the first law minister of Pakistan?

    To some of my fellow (hardliner) Pakistanis: If the “Two Nation Theory” was applicable (in the sense as you interpret it) yesterday, then it should be applicable today as well and with equal. If so, what is the status of Hindus in Pakistan? Are they part of Pakistani “Nation” or not – what “National” Identity Card do they carry and what is their “Nationality” as per their passports? Similarly, what is the status of Muslims living in India?

  20. Samachar

    If the Muslim League had a secular, democratic manifesto before independence, then Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech does not have the great significance that is attributed to it in previous articles on this board. There would be zero confusion about the inapplicability of the Objectives Resolution 1949, and so on.

    There was nothing preventing Jinnah from saying in 1940 that he wanted a united India as a confederation of two equal parts (instead of the sovereign independent Muslim states of the Lahore Resolution). Nor was there any problem in saying out publicly, Hodson has the problem well described, now solve it.

    This “he had to be ambiguous because it was a bargaining ploy” is the route to dishonesty.

  21. “Jinnah Sahib who was indeed a man of integrity could never have imagined opting out to make another union and hence, he signed the Cabinet Mission Plan in June, 1946.
    The idea just backfired after Nehru-Patel’s tactful refusal which forced a real, “Gandhian” and non-violent person like Jinnah to call for ‘Direct Action’ in August, 1947. So in all reality, Pakistan was forced and thrust upon IML and Jinnah.”

    Well said AKC!

  22. Kashif Jahangiri


    Why did AIML accept the Cabinet Mission Plan and why did Mr. Jinnah appoint a Hindu law minister upstart and even ask a Hindu to write the national anthem for Pakistan?

    If you step back and take a holistic view of the situation, you will understand that Jinnah played his cards quite well.

    The reference to the Objective Resolution is not relevant here, as that is a story of 1949 (some six months of the death of Mr. Jinnah).

  23. YLH

    Kashif bhai,

    Samachar is an old foggy who doesn’t understand the English language very well.

    Nothing will satisfy her unless we provide the statement “psst …I am just saying I want an independent state but I am actually really only asking for a confederation wink wink”.

    For the rest of us ofcourse there is an established an academic tradition that argues exactly what I’ve argued above.

  24. Bilal Ahmad

    I consider Mr. Jinnah as a great leader, but I had a disturbing query in my mind, that was, was Mr. Jinnah a religious hardliner who divided India just on religious basis? After all what did Pakistan give to Indian Muslims? haven’t their lives got worse after creation of Pakistan? Thanks to YLH, he has shown us that Mr. Jinnah fought for all Muslims of India, he tried his best to safeguard interests of all Muslims in British India, but circumstances didn’t allow it and he had to go for separate homeland for Muslims.

  25. amar

    It is only about blaming hindus for Pakistan’s and muslims’ ills. So it began before 1910 and so it will continue after 2010.

    Its a sick-sickening dishonest debate led by ylh. The arrogance of muslims is a result of their subservience to arab ethno-fascism and theistic totalitarianism.

    I have failed to read a single really honest argument from the pakistan-pasand squad. So keep stewing in your dishoensties for many more years through your own free will. A land without hope based on honesty can rejoice only by sending killer squads and by killing animals brutally in the name of some alien god. The one “celebration” leads to the other.

    They are accusing us hindus of all possible evil things because the hindus (at least some of them) refused to kneel in front of the demands made by the quislings of an alien ideology exported from Arabia. Quislings have their own “pride” what, and are ready to invest their “intelligence” for it.

  26. Straight-Talk

    It is sad realization of the actual happenings of the partition of India. There were many ifs and buts, but it is fact that we’re separated now and meandered a long way on our chosen path.

    One thing I’m sure and that is Jinnah’s intention of united India up to 1940, this I’m saying due to his construction of a grand Jinnah house in Mumbai in 1940-41. If partition of India had been on his mind, he wouldn’t have constructed so splashing house and that too late.

    Second thing, is about Neharu Ji and Gandhi Ji, Both of them either were aloof from the real happenings among the Muslims masses or mislead about them. Both of them kept on believing that majority of Muslims support Congress. And there is no point in giving-in to the demand of Jinnah.

    Although now after 63 years of partition of India, we can say from vintage point that decisions of Pt Nehru on strong center and his rebuttal of Jinnah was good for India. India being so diverse country could not have been united…………. But if he would have know the real intentions of Jinnah or if Jinnah had explicitly expressed his desires to congress and if Nehru would have known a few things about the Consociationalism, he would have wholeheartedly accepted the formula of Jinnah and demand of Leagues of power sharing with minority.

  27. Hayyer


    You have finally got a grasp of the reality here on PTH. Time now to continue your relentless search for the truth elsewhere in cyberspace. Do yourself, and us incidentally a big favour.

  28. Yasser: great post and thanks for agreeing to continue the thread. I notice many saying – “Why Jinnah” and what’s the relevance. Well the issue is that Jinnah is relevant and reclaiming his worldview is vital to our present.
    Hence the forays into the past by PTH. Some Indian readers don’t like a nuanced and layered view of history and in a similar manner ideologues and zealots in Pakistan are averse to the complexity of historical processes.
    We need to challenge official histories and half-truths…

  29. Amar
    Much as one believes in freedom of expression your bigotry and hate speech is getting out of hand. You are an ignorant person who needs to go to unlearn a lot..

  30. Farid

    “We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a Laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.”
    Allama Iqbal: “Juda ho deen siyasat se tu reh jati hai changazi.”

    The Islamic laws that are being experimented in Pakistan are Blasphemy Laws, Hudood ordinance, And the constitutional amendment to declare some folks non Muslim. Was jinnah referening to the above laws in the “Laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles”.
    It is clear that Pakistan is following the Jinnah and Iqbal dream.

    “But the point is that the League’s entire election campaign in the 1945-1946 elections was stage managed in Punjab by the Communist Party of India. They would not have done so if they had thought the League was operating on a narrow communal or theocratic agenda.”

    This is not just revisionist history, it is a distortion of history and the author must present some credible evidence in support of this distorted version.
    Had that been the case, the CPI would have some of its member contest the elections in Punjab. How many contested from the Muslim League Platform.
    The ML election campaign was managed by former Unionists and the Aligarh university student mostly from UP and central India, were invoking Islam during the campaign.

  31. YLH


    That shows how ignorant you are.

    Tell me which party the following belonged to:

    1. Sajjad Zaheer
    2. PC Joshi
    3. Daniyal Latifi
    4. G Adhikari

    The Punjab League did put up a leftist as its main candidate … Ever hear of Mian Iftikharuddin. I bet you haven’t.

    There are several great books on the Communist movement in Punjab and Communist Party’s complete support for the Pakistan Movement. You may want to enlighten yourself.

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

  32. YLH

    Btw … Can you tell me if Faiz Ahmed Faiz was an ex-unionist too?

    soon after the 1946 elections, Mian Iftikharuddin set up the Pakistan Times with Jinnah as its chief patron. This newspaper- left in orientation- was a mouthpiece of the League, especially through the civil disobedience movement by the Muslim League.

    Guess who the Editor in Chief was ? It was Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Bet you didn’t know that.

    Furthermore… I am sure you haven’t heard of Masood Khadarposh either …the man who organised one of the largest worker movements in Sindh, at Jinnah’s behest.

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

  33. amar

    What Pakistan and pakistanis badly need is to get out of their beloved “blame the hindus and India” pastime, education and narrative.

    You can have your glorified Jinnah provided you don’t resort to any anti-hindu or anti-India diatribes. In fact it is in your own interest to keep all anti-India and anti-hindu arguments out (apart from the fact that they are all vague or false or reflect a mean “we quislings triumph mentality”).

    I can understand the hate against me, but remember, the one who flatters is never the true friend. I am keeping up my strong rebuttals and rejections in your own interest. There is no one else with such a voice among you.

    Once even Ishtiak Ahmed wrote a nasty email to me. But today his position is nearer to mine (as can be seen in his latest article). The visceral hatred which ylh spews forth against Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, congress, hindus etc. has not been protested against by the PTH managers. Take note that Gandhi was killed (most foolishly I would say) by a hindu and not a muslim, because Gandhi was most relenting to muslim (quislings) demands and sacrificing the interests of the hindus (who had put so much love and trust in him) for his own megalomaniac political holiness. Gandhi wanted to be popular among christians, muslims and whoever else, but he took the hindus for granted as his own yes-men, who were to be his palanquin-bearers. May be calling him “mahatma” was a conspiracy by some clever mussalmans to make him develop a megalomania of holiness and behave like Jesus Christ and neglect the interests of his own people (=always offer the other cheek to the one who slaps you).

    Hindu sufferings and the insults and injuries which hindus had to go through are far more than those of muslims. With their so-called holy book full of contradictions (which is causing much pain even to the muslims) the hindus are in for much more trouble coming their way from islam, muslims and Pakistan.

    I can wish I am wrong – but, unfortunately for you self-deceivers, I am not.

  34. Farid

    Sajjad Zaheer managed ML Campaign in Punjab. That would be a news to Sajjad Zaheer himself in his grave.

    Little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Faiz did not officially become a communist party member until the 70s. He was mostly a sympathizer before that.
    Mian Iftikhar was never a member of the communist party. Many folks have written about him but no one ever, not even the communist, claimed him a member of the CPI. He was in Congress before he joined the ML.

    He was not a CPI supported candidate ever. He was winning elections before joining ML on Congress tickets.

    Since you have made the claim in the article, it is incumbent upon you to present the evidence too.
    The article has numerous historical untruths and I will take up all of them one by one.
    Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a lab to experiment Islamic laws and we have the Pakistan, he envisioned.

    Dropping names does not change the history. Masood Khadarposh was also not a member of the CPI.

  35. Farid

    So did P.C. Joshi also manage the MLL campaign in Punjab?

  36. amar

    Islam itself is an imperialist ideology. Then how can a muslim or a muslim party be anti-imperialist? Islam brings with it the imperialism of the arabs, turks and pashtuns. And also the totalitarianism of arabic monotheism (see the persecution of the sufis by the muslims).

    Islam’s and muslims’ “anti-imperialism” is only against christians, europeans (but, surprisingly, not against the chinese) etc. – but only with the intention of replacing it through an islamic-arabic-turkish political and cultural imperialism and supremacy. In addition there is this arabic or turkish ethno-fascism and chauvinism that accompanies this so-called islamic anti-imperialism. Muslims are fixated into their own self-glorifying narration of history.

    Think over this aspect of reality carefully and sympathetically. It will help you really.

  37. YLH

    Little knowledge is dangerous Farid

    Read Bhagwan Josh’s “communist movement in Punjab” and see pages 168-175.

    Also read Sajjad Zaheer’s “League-Unionist Conflict” peoples’ publishing house Bombay July 1944 publication.

    “The task of every patriot is to welcome and help this democratic growth which at long last is now taking place among the Muslims of Punjab. The last stronghold of imperialist bureaucracy in India is invaded by the League. Let us help the people of Punjab to capture it.

    Page 33. Sajjad Zaheer was not only one of the main stage managers…he also described Muslim League as a great and progressive liberationist force. He also authored the famous “a case for League and Congress Unity”.

  38. YLH

    Here is PC Joshi

    “We have popularised the Muslim demand for Pakistan among Congress men …”. Pamphlet “they must meet again” pages 1-2 People’s publishing house Bombay January 1945.

    Here is something else on the same page:

    “Anti unity, pro-sabotage and pro-Hindu elements among Congressmen have tried to stop us getting a hearing by spreading the slander that we were Government agents in private paying the compliment (not meant to be such) that we were able to work out the case for Pakistan than even the Leaguers”.

    PC Joshi.

    I have more if you wish for me to continue.

    Like I said little knowledge is dangerous “Farid”.

    I’ll also expose your lies about Faiz in a minute.

  39. Farid

    Sajjad Zaheer might have descripbed ML whatever. That is not the point. The point is: did he manage ML campaign in 1946? The book you’re quoting was published in 1944, how could it be used as evidence that Sajjad Zaheer or the communist managed ML campaign in Punjab in 1946?

    You are again dropping names and nothing else. You need to show the reference in Joshi’s book that the CPI managed ML election campaign as you have claimed above.

  40. YLH

    Farid mian …

    That is because you haven’t bothered to read the reference carefuly. Here is the quote from Bhagwan Josh’s book “Communist Movement in Punjab”:

    “In July 1945, Provincial Communist leadership issued instructions to District Committees to hold joint Communist-Muslim League meetings for the purpose of opposing the Unionists. Unlike Nawab of Mamdot, Mumtaj (sic) Daultana one of League’s “young progressives” was known to be favourable to t Communists and he asked them to help the Punjab Muslim League in its hitherto unsuccessful campaign against the Unioniist Party.”

    Page 176

    The book continues:

    Apart from the policy constraints laid down by the Central leadership, the following logic might have led the Punjab Communists to join hands with provincial Muslim League: firstly this gave them the opportunity to unite all the forces opposed to the Unionist Party which they had long held to be at the beck and call of imperialist authorities…

    Page 177

    PC Joshi was of the view that once Pakistan was accepted as the sovereign right to Muslim homeland, demarcation of the boundary of Pakistan was only a question of facts and figures.


    About the 1945-1946 elections

    “The new strategy of the party was to work as the builder of a new United National Front in form of a Congress-League-Communist joint front. The election represented a gain of 35 seats for the League and of 18 seats for the Congress… The formation of Congress – Akali- Unionist coalition ministry instead of soothing the communal tensions sharply accentuated them. This was Valabhai Patel’s political manoeuvre to come out of the confusion of communal politics. The new coalition was totally against the expectations of the Communists. Specifically for the last four years they had been working for League-Congress Unity.”

    Page 195

  41. YLH

    If Faiz did not “officially become a member of the communist party” till the 1970s, why was he arrested as a member of the Communist Party of Pakistan in the ill-fated General Akbar Khan affair in 1950?

    HP try and read more. You are terribly uneducated.

  42. YLH

    Now I refer to Ajeet Javed’s “Left Movement in Punjab 1935-1947” published by YS Tiwari For Durga publishers Kailash Nagar New Delhi.

    “To replacement of Unionist Ministry by a Muslim League government was considered a more “national and liberal form of government.”

    To give the above policy a practical shape, Sohan Singh Josh and Danial Latifi met Jinnah in Lahore … Jinnah appreciated the communists’ campaign on the Pakistan issue, which he said was “better than was done from the League platform itself,” but he was suspicious of the Communists joining the Muslim League. Liaqat Ali Khan made it clear to Josh and Latifi that any communist wishing to join the League would have to resign from the Communist Party.

    …The Communist Party of Punjab asked the Muslim communists like Danial Latifi, Abdullah Mallick and others to resign from the party and join the Muslim League. Feroz-ud-din, a communist member, was made incharge of the Muslim front… in addition, it tried to persuade the Muslim members and MLAs belonging to the Congress, Ahrars and the Unionist Party to desert their parties and join the Muslim League.

    Danial Latifi and Abdullah Mallick started their work in the Muslim League and formed a progressive group inside the League…Danial Latifi was appointed Office Secretary of the Provincial Muslim League.

    The communist members of the League tried to win over other members of the organisation by characterizing it patriotic and by assisting it to enrol Muslims in large numbers in order to make it a mass organisation. Their efforts were not in vain and even a government report said that a recent meeting a prominent Muslim League worker went so far as to praise Russian achievements and another worker described the aims and objects of the communists.

    Above all even the Election Manifesto of Muslim League was drafted by Danial Latifi and it contained a programme of radical national reconstruction. The Communist members played an important role in the Muslim League. With the cooperation of the communists, the League was able to secure a foothold in the rural Muslim masses of Punjab which had hitherto constituted a strong base of the Unionist Party.

    Page 211-212

  43. YLH

    And from the same book:

    “On Muslim seats, it decided to support the Muslim League and in some other constituencies the scheduled caste candidates”.

    Page 222.

  44. YLH

    Erratum second book is called “Left Politics in Punjab”.

  45. Watty

    Pakistan’s consistent denial of its roots in the Indian and essentially Hindu ethos of the past, imposes a heavy price on its present and future generations. It explains this endless obsession and frustrating attempts at self definition. Modern science has established beyond doubt that by and large Pakistani’s share Indian DNA.

    That said, Jinnah is as relevant to Pakistan today as Gandhi is to modern India – both belong on pedestals of a bygone past. What the common citizens of both nations desire and demand today is an improvement in their daily lives and a secure and peaceful future for their children. That should be our common focus.

  46. Farid

    I don’t know how spamming is going to help you.
    Here is what you wrote,”But the point is that the League’s entire election campaign in the 1945-1946 elections was stage managed in Punjab by the Communist Party of India. They would not have done so if they had thought the League was operating on a narrow communal or theocratic agenda.”

    None of the above prove that the CPI stage managed the 1945-46 Elections. Supporting or cooperating is not Managing… English comprehension issues I guess. Since when support means “stage Managed”.
    You are just distorting the history and nothing else.

    No one is denying that CPI supported the Muslim nation construct but the CPI never managed ML campaign anywhere including Punjab.

  47. Farid

    None of the above quotes prove that the CPI stage managed the 1945-46 Elections.

  48. Farid

    The only communist in the Pindi conspiracy were Zaheer Sajjad and Mohd Hussain Atta. Atta later owned a Bar opposite Rex cinema in Saddar Karachi.

    The government called all civilians Communists, Faiz was never even involved in day to day politics. He was just framed in that case like many other folks.

  49. Farid

    “P.C. Joshi was also primarily responsible for attracting writers, artistes and people in the creative arts to the Communist movement. Some of the outstanding cultural activists joined the Party inspired by Joshi’s personality and example. Kaifi Azmi, Balraj Sahni, Ali Sardar Jafri, Sajjad Zaheer, Bhisham Sahni, Chittaprasad, Sunil Janah and a host of others joined the party due to his ministrations.”

    Faiz was not even mentioned. And he was a better known poet at that time.

    Even the advocacy of Muslim self determination was corrected in 1946 by the CPI.

  50. MilesToGo

    Message from a gangster
    By: Vikram Maurya

    I Chhota Shakeel (a gangster) am the messenger of Dawood Ibrahim (The Don).

    I am the only messenger of Dawood and there is no other person who can do mandwali (make deals) on his behalf. Anybody who claims to be the messenger of The Don is fake, kill him outright.

    It’s the order of the The Don that his followers (Our gang) go out and conquer the world. Fight till all other gangs in the entire world accept the authority of The Don.

    Kill other gang members wherever you find them. Wait in ambush for them. The Don is most merciful, he will forgive you for that.

    When you kill other gang members, their wealth and woman are your right hand possession. They are yours to keep, have sex with them or sell them or do both. The Don is most merciful he will forgive you for that, he is oft merciful.

    When other gang member joins The Don’s gang (our gang), or agrees to pay hafta (authority fee), forgive him. The Don will also forgive him. The Don is most merciful.

    Women and men are not the same, women are weak. They are not good for fighting. They are only good for sex. So all male members of Our gang can keep up to four women each, but no more, The Don does not like it if Our gang members have more.

    Now I keep 38 women..umm might be a couple more, but so what I am Chhota Shakeel the messenger of The Don and the 4 women rule is not binding on me.

    A girl 9 years of age is old enough to have sex so don’t worry if people call you a pedophile. I, Chhota Shakeel, had sex with such a girl. The messenger of The Don is the best of men and would never do wrong so you also can enjoy a 9 year old girl.

    Destroy other gang members headquarters and set up our regional offices there. No other Don is worth working for only Our Don is supreme and only his followers are supreme.

    Don’t fight with other gang members at our offices, The Don does not like that. But if the other gang members start a fight anywhere, then it is okay to kill them anywhere until they submit to The Don’s will.

    When you cut an animal or other gang members slaughter him slowly, trust me it gives a lot of pleasure man. The Don himself told it to me and I have experienced that heavenly pleasure.

    One more thing I told you that you can keep only 4 women but that is legally. You can also keep as many concubines as you want there is no restriction on that.

    Hey, as a warning, whenever you are out on assignment at least make phone calls five times a day to The Don, otherwise he becomes suspicious. So please call and praise him 5 times a day. Also if any of our gang members wants to leave the gang kill him outright. He is a traitor.

    If you do good and perform excellently The Don will reward you with 72 virgins. You can have sex with them as long as you want. And the magic is they will be virgins again the next time you see them.

    Hey, all of our gang members must visit Karachi once in his life time because that is where The Don lives.

    Chhota Shakeel

  51. S.A


    I thought I had hammered some sense in you but now it appears that your senses have departed you for good.

  52. MilesToGo

    Here is some sense for you:

    26/11: Lashkar strikes, investigators scramble
    Sebastian Rotella , ProPublica
    Posted on Nov 15, 2010 at 17:18 | Updated Nov 16, 2010 at 17:02
    Share David Coleman Headley seemed like a gregarious, high-rolling American businessman when he set up shop in Mumbai in September 2006.

    He opened the office of an immigration consulting firm. He partied at swank locales such as the ornate Taj Mahal Hotel, a 1903 landmark favored by Westerners and the Indian elite. He joined an upscale gym, where he befriended a Bollywood actor. He roamed the booming, squalid city taking photos and shooting video.

    But it was all a front. The tall, fast-talking Pakistani American with the slicked-back hair was a fierce extremist, a former drug dealer, a onetime Drug Enforcement Administration informant who became a double agent. He had spent three years refining his clandestine skills in the terrorist training camps of the Lashkar-i-Taiba militant group. As Headley confessed in a guilty plea in US federal court this year, he was in Mumbai to begin undercover reconnaissance for a sophisticated attack that would take two years to plan.

    In 2006, US counterterrorism agencies still viewed Lashkar primarily as a threat to India. But Headley’s mentor, Sajid Mir, had widened his sights to Western targets years earlier. Mir, a mysterious Lashkar chief with close ties to Pakistani security forces, had deployed operatives who had completed missions and attempted plots in Virginia, Europe and Australia before being captured, according to investigators and court documents.

    Now Mir’s experience in international operations and his skills as a handler of Western recruits were about to pay off. Lashkar had chosen him as project manager of its most ambitious, highly choreographed strike to date.

    Mir’s ally in the plot was a man known to Headley only as Maj. Iqbal, who investigators suspect was an officer of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) and a liaison to the Lashkar terrorist group. Iqbal is a common Pakistani last name, and investigators have not been able to fully identify him. Maj. Iqbal and Mir worked as handlers for Headley, their lead scout, during his missions in India, according to investigators and court documents.

    The iconic Taj hotel was the centerpiece of the plan. When Headley returned to Pakistan after his first scouting trip to Mumbai, Mir told him he needed more images and also schedules for the hotel’s conference rooms and ballroom, which often hosted high-powered events, according to investigators and court documents.

    “They thought it would be a good place to get valuable hostages,” an Indian anti-terrorism official said.

    ProPublica has tracked the rise of Lashkar through Mir’s career as a holy warrior. It is a story of a militant group that used political clout and support from Pakistani security forces to develop global reach and formidable tradecraft, according to investigators and court documents. It is also a story of how, despite a series of warning signs, anti-terrorism agencies were caught off-guard when Lashkar escalated its war on the West with a 2008 attack on Mumbai that targeted Americans, Europeans and Jews as well as Indians.

    Mir convicted in Paris

    As Mir and Headley plotted in 2006, French investigators were confronting the potential dimensions of the threat posed by Lashkar, a longtime al-Qaeda ally founded in the late 1980s and used by Pakistan as a proxy army in the fight against India for the Kashmir region.

    France’s top counterterrorism magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, had spent three years investigating Mir after one of Mir’s French operatives, Willie Brigitte, was arrested in a foiled bomb plot in Australia. Brigitte gave a long confession identifying Mir as his Lashkar handler, describing him as a figure whose influential connections made him “untouchable in Pakistan.” With the help of foreign investigators, Bruguiere built a case that Mir was a kingpin leading terrorist operations on four continents.

    The evidence also convinced Bruguiere that Mir was an officer in the Pakistani army or the ISI, a branch of the military. This point is murky: Senior European and US counterterrorism officials concur with the French judge, but some US investigators do not think Mir was in the military. Pakistani officials say they have no information on Mir or Maj. Iqbal and deny any role of the security forces in terrorism.

    In October 2006, two years before the Mumbai attacks, Bruguiere issued an arrest warrant for Mir that was circulated worldwide by Interpol. There was no response from Pakistan.

    A Paris court convicted Mir in absentia and sentenced him to 10 years in prison in 2007. Nonetheless, Bruguiere says most Western investigators he dealt with continued to view Lashkar as a regional actor confined to South Asia.

    “For me it was a crucial case, a turning point,” Bruguiere said, “because of what it revealed about the role played by Pakistani groups in the global jihad and about the role of the Pakistani security forces in terrorism. We had the impression that Mir was protected at the highest levels of the state.”

    In summer 2007, Bruguiere met at the White House with a top security adviser to President George W. Bush. The French judge shared his fears about Lashkar and his suspicion that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was playing a “double game.” (Musharraf has asserted publicly that he was a staunch ally in the fight against terrorism.)

    Bruguiere said the White House official, whom he declined to identify publicly, did not seem convinced.

    “The US government is a huge machine,” said Bruguiere, who is now the European Union’s envoy to Washington in efforts against terrorism financing. “It’s difficult to make it change course.”

    Warning signs

    In 2007, Headley carried out two more reconnaissance missions.

    Before and after each trip, he met with Mir and Maj. Iqbal in Pakistani safe houses, turning over photos, videos and notes, according to investigators and US court documents. At one point, Mir showed Headley a plastic-foam model of the Taj that had been built using the information Headley had gathered, according to investigators and documents.

    Mir focused Headley on terrorism targets around India. Maj. Iqbal directed him to also collect military intelligence, according to officials and documents.

    Headley’s work was complicated by a tangled personal life that got him in trouble again in December 2007. His estranged fourth wife, a Moroccan, told officials at the US Embassy in Islamabad that she believed he was a terrorist. She made references to training and suicide bombings and described his frequent travel to Mumbai, including her stays with him at the Taj hotel, US law enforcement officials say.

    But US agents at the embassy decided the woman’s account lacked specifics. Headley continued to roam free.

    As the plot took shape in 2008, the FBI and CIA began hearing chatter about Lashkar. The agencies warned India at least three times about threats to Mumbai. The intelligence may have come from communications intercepts or sources in Pakistan. But privately, some U.S and Indian anti-terrorism officials express suspicion that US agencies were tracking Headley’s movements and picking up bits and pieces about the plot without realizing he was deeply involved.

    US intelligence officials say they did not warn the Indians about Headley because they did not connect him to terrorism until months after the attacks. Although they say Headley was no longer working as a DEA informant by early 2008, it isn’t clear when that relationship ended or whether it evolved into intelligence-gathering. The CIA and the FBI say Headley never worked for them.

    In April 2008, Headley’s Moroccan wife returned to the embassy in Islamabad with another tip. She warned that her husband was on “a special mission.” She also linked him to a 2007 train bombing in India that had killed 68 people and that India and the United States blamed on Lashkar, US officials say. Authorities have not implicated Headley in that still-unsolved attack, however.

    It is not known how the US Embassy personnel responded to the wife’s allegations, but a federal official said the FBI did not receive the information until after the attack. Headley returned to Mumbai on a fourth scouting mission in May. He went on boat tours, using a GPS device that Mir gave him to assess landing sites for an amphibious attack, court documents say.

    That same month, US agencies alerted India that intelligence suggested Lashkar was planning to attack the Taj and other sites frequented by foreigners and Americans, according to US and Indian anti-terrorism officials.

    The group also considered hitting the US Consulate in Mumbai. Indian and US investigators say another accused Lashkar scout had a map identifying the consulate along with other targets that were ultimately attacked.

    Mir and the other Pakistani masterminds decided on a classic Lashkar “fedayeen raid” in which fighters take hostages to inflict maximum chaos and casualties. (Fedayeen is an Arabic word for guerrilla fighters and means “one who sacrifices himself.”) Mir oversaw a veteran Lashkar trainer who prepared 32 recruits during months of drills in mountain camps and at the group’s headquarters outside Lahore, according to investigators and court documents.

    The plan called for a team of fighters to infiltrate Mumbai by boat. Fifteen candidates were sent to Karachi for swimming and nautical instruction. But the youthful country boys had little experience with water. Some got seasick. Some ran away from swim training. Trainers had to bring in eight replacements, Indian and US anti-terrorism officials say.

    In July, Headley began his final scouting trip. In September, the anti-terrorism chief of the Mumbai police visited the Taj hotel to discuss new US warnings. Hotel management beefed up security, Indian officials say.

    The plotters isolated the 10-man attack team in a safe house in Karachi in mid-September and outlined their mission, using videos, photos and maps. In November Headley also headed for Karachi, where he met again with Mir but had no contact with the attack team, according to documents and officials.

    On November 18, eight days before the attacks, American officials told Indian intelligence that a suspicious ship might be en route to Mumbai. The Indians requested more information, the Indian anti-terrorism official said.

    The strike

    The attack squad left Karachi at 8 a.m. on November 22.

    The gunmen hijacked an Indian fishing trawler, killed the crew and sailed to about five miles off the shores of Mumbai. On the evening of Nov. 26, the squad transferred to an 11-seat dinghy and landed in a slum where lights, phones and police were scarce.

    Lashkar had set up a remote command post in a safe house or a hotel that US and Indian officials believe was in Lahore or Karachi. The room was stocked with computers, televisions, voice-over-Internet phones from a New Jersey company and satellite phones that were manned by Mir and five other handlers, according to US and Indian officials and a report prepared by Indian intelligence.

    The assault began about 9:30 p.m. Two-man teams hit four of the targets within a half-hour. Assault rifles chattered; time bombs exploded in taxis; panic engulfed the city. Despite the US warnings, Indian security forces were caught off-guard. Elite National Security Guard commandos did not fly in from Delhi until the next morning, according to the Indian intelligence report.

    Indian intelligence officers frantically checked known phone numbers associated with Lashkar and were able to intercept and record nearly 300 calls. Mir’s voice dominated the conversations, according to officials and documents. Thanks to Headley, he knew the targets inside-out.

    Using the alias Wassi, Mir oversaw the assault on the Taj hotel, the prime target, where 32 people died. The phone hand lers in Pakistan made the attack interactive, relaying reports about television coverage to the gunmen and even searching the Internet for the name of a banker they had taken hostage. After killing 10 people at the historic Leopold Cafe, a second assault team joined the two gunmen at the Taj.

    “They wanted to see the Taj Mahal burn,” a senior US law enforcement official said. “It was all choreographed with the media in mind.”

    Mir chided a gunman who grew distracted by the luxuries of a suite instead of setting the hotel ablaze, according to one intercepted call.

    “We can’t watch if there aren’t any flames,” said Mir, who was viewing the action on live television. “Where are they?”

    “It’s amazing,” the gunman exclaimed. “The windows are huge. It’s got two kitchens, a bath and a little shop.”

    “Start the fire, my brother,” Mir insisted. “Start a proper fire, that’s the important thing.”

    At the nearby Oberoi Hotel, two attackers hunted Americans and Britons, demanding passports at gunpoint, according to US investigators. They stormed the restaurant and shot Sandeep “Sam” Jeswani, 43, an Indian American customer relations director for a radiation therapy company in Wisconsin. At another table, they executed Alan Scherr, 58, and his daughter Naomi, 13. The former art professor from Virginia had taken his daughter on a spiritual pilgrimage to India.

    The gunmen killed 33 people at the Oberoi, then took refuge in Room 1856. Their handlers instructed them to divide ammunition magazines and keep their weapons on burst mode to conserve bullets. After one gunman was killed, Mir encouraged the other to go out in a blaze of glory.

    “For your mission to end successfully, you must be killed,” Mir said in one of the intercepted calls. “God is waiting for you in heaven. . . . Fight bravely, and put your phone in your pocket, but leave it on. We like to know what’s going on.”

    Another team rampaged through Mumbai’s central train station, killing 58 and wounding 104. Their tactics reflected Lashkar’s expert training. They avoided running, which is tiring and churns up emotions. They stayed within arm’s length in a “buddy pair” combat formation, a Lashkar signature technique that enabled them to support one another psychologically, sustain fire and exchange ammunition.

    Unlike the others, however, the duo at the train station failed to call the command post. Instead of barricading themselves with hostages as ordered, they left the station. It was a dramatic error that underscored the crucial role of the hand lers’ round-the-clock phone instructions, their ingenious method of compensating for the limitations of their fighters.

    In the running gunfights that followed, the chief of Mumbai’s anti-terrorist unit was killed along with an attacker. The other gunman, a diminutive 21-year-old with a fourth-grade education, was captured. The confession of the lone surviving attacker proved vital to the investigation.

    Death calls at Chabad House

    The six-story Jewish center known as the Chabad House was attacked about an hour after the assault began.

    Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, the red-bearded, 29-year-old director, and his pregnant wife, Rivka, 28, had entertained visitors in the second-floor dining room that night. Two rabbis from New York, Aryeh Leibish Teitelbaum and Ben-Zion Chroman, had stopped in to say goodbye as they wrapped up a trip to India to certify kosher food products.

    When Holtzberg heard shots and screams, he grabbed his cellphone and called a security officer at the Israeli consulate.

    “The situation is bad,” he said.

    Then the line went dead.

    The gunmen shot the Holtzbergs and the visiting rabbis. The Holtzbergs’ son, 2-year-old Moishele, wandered among corpses and debris until the next day, when his Indian nanny crept upstairs, grabbed him and escaped.

    News that one of his men had been captured reached Mir in the command post. Mir decided to try to win his release by using the two female hostages who were still alive at Chabad House: Yocheved Orpaz, an Israeli grandmother, and Norma Rabinovich, a Mexican tourist.

    Mir told a gunman to hand Rabinovich the phone. He ordered her to propose a prisoner exchange to Israeli diplomats. She reported back to him after her conversation with the Israelis, addressing him as “sir.”

    “I was talking to the consulate a few minutes ago,” she said, her voice shaking. “They are calling the prime minister and the army in India from the embassy in Delhi.”

    Mir’s serene tone made him sound like a helpful bureaucrat.

    “Don’t worry then, ah, just sit back and relax and don’t worry and just wait for them to make contact,” he told her.

    Hours later, Mir gave the order to kill her. A gunman named Akasha sounded reluctant. Mir turned icy when he learned the two women were still alive. He demanded: “Have you done the job or not?”

    Akasha executed the women as Mir listened, according to the transcript. The gunfire echoed over the phone.

    The next morning, helicopter-borne commandos swooped onto the roof. Mir gave real-time orders as he watched the gunfight on television. Akasha reported in a hoarse, strangled voice that he had been wounded in the arm and leg.

    “God protect you,” Mir said. “Did you manage to hit any of their guys?”

    “We got one commando. Pray that God will accept my martyrdom.”

    “Praise God. Praise God. God keep you.”

    The aftermath

    The three-day siege of Mumbai triggered international outrage.

    The United Nations put Lashkar chiefs on a blacklist. Pakistan detained Hafiz Saeed, the group’s founder, for another in a series of short-lived house arrests. Western authorities scrambled to reassess the threat from Lashkar.

    Unruffled, Mir and Headley were already at work on their next target: a Danish newspaper that in 2005 had published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. In November, Mir gave his scout a thumb drive with information about Denmark and the Jyllands Posten newspaper, according to documents and officials. They christened the new plot “The Mickey Mouse Project.”

    In December, Mir met Headley again, even though the other handler, Maj. Iqbal, had cut off contact with the American. Headley suggested narrowing the scope of the newspaper plot and killing only the cartoonist and an editor. Mir disagreed. Despite the uproar over Mumbai, he seemed eager to take an audacious terrorism campaign into Europe, according to documents and investigators.

    “All Danes are responsible,” Mir declared, according to US officials and documents.

    About the same time, the FBI was pursuing yet another tip about Headley. A friend of his mother in Philadelphia had come forward after seeing the news about the Mumbai attacks. She told agents that she believed Headley had been fighting alongside Pakistani militants for years. Agents conducted an inquiry but then put it on hold because they thought he was out of the country, US officials said.

    In January 2009, Headley traveled from Chicago to Denmark. Using his business cover, he visited the newspaper’s offices and inquired about advertising his immigration firm. He shot video of the area and — because Mir mistakenly believed the editor was Jewish — of a nearby synagogue, documents say.

    But a few weeks later, Mir put the plan on hold, according to documents and investigators. Pakistani authorities had finally arrested a big fish: Lashkar’s military chief. They also arrested a Lashkar boss who had allegedly worked the phones with Mir at the command post for the Mumbai attacks, and some low-level henchmen.

    In March, Mir sent Headley to India to scout more targets. But Headley was fixated on Denmark. For help, he turned to IIyas Kashmiri, an al-Qaeda boss. Kashmiri offered to provide Headley with militants in Europe for the attack. He envisioned attackers decapitating hostages and throwing heads out of the newspaper office windows, documents say.

    Headley accepted the offer. Still, he kept urging Mir to return to the Mickey Mouse Project, according to documents and officials. In an e-mail in August, Headley described another reconnaissance trip to Copenhagen. He jokingly complimented Mir about his “music videos” — code for a TV program about Mumbai that had featured Mir’s voice directing the attacks.

    With affectionate exasperation, Mir warned his operative to be careful, according to documents and officials.

    “Your skin is dear to me, more than my own,” Mir wrote.

    In September 2009, documents show, Headley again discussed joining forces with Mir for the Denmark attack, a sign that Mir was operating freely. But Headley wasn’t so lucky. His contact with two known al-Qaeda suspects in Britain had put him on the radar of British intelligence, who alerted their US counterparts. In October, the FBI arrested Headley in Chicago, where he had a Pakistani wife and children.

    The FBI had been working the Mumbai case ever since a team of agents from Los Angeles rushed to India after the attacks. Their leads — phone analysis, forensics, money trails — had been instrumental to the Indian and Pakistani investigations.

    Headley’s cooperation gave the FBI a treasure trove of evidence and intelligence. In March he pleaded guilty to helping organize the Mumbai attacks and the Denmark plot. His confession and the contents of his computer showed he had scouted scores of targets, including American ones, around the world, officials say. Investigators say he did not do reconnaissance in the United States, but they noted a chilling detail: His immigration consulting firm had offices in the Empire State Building.

    Headley helped US investigators overcome a basic problem they had run into on the Mumbai case. American agencies lacked data on Lashkar: photo books, organizational charts, profiles.

    “The intelligence was very thin before Mumbai,” said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), whose House Foreign Affairs subcommittee held hearings on Lashkar this year.

    Charles Faddis, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, contends the intelligence community did not dedicate enough resources to Lashkar.

    “It’s a classic problem in the US intelligence community: failing to anticipate new threats and focusing completely on the one that already hit us,” Faddis said.

    A US counterterrorism official disagreed, saying: “It’s simply wrong to suggest that we’ve underestimated [Lashkar].”

    It seems clear the government did underestimate Headley. A review this month by the director of national intelligence found that US agencies had received six warnings about Headley from his wives and associates from October 2001 to December 2008. Yet federal agents didn’t place him on a terrorist watch list or open a full investigation until July 2009, eight months after the Mumbai attacks. The office of the intelligence director has said nothing publicly about Headley’s work as a US informant.

    Quest for justice

    The Mumbai case could put Washington and Islamabad on a collision course. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has vowed to prosecute the killings of the six Americans as required by law. The prosecutions of the Mumbai and Denmark plots are being led by US Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago. But it’s unlikely Pakistan would extradite the suspects to the United States, officials say. And Pakistani courts tend not to convict accused radical Islamists.

    The evidence against at least half a dozen suspected masterminds of Mumbai who are still at large includes Headley’s statements implicating officers in Pakistan’s ISI along with Lashkar, officials say. There are also physical clues. The FBI identified a phone number that is believed to connect Mir, Headley and Pakistani intelligence officials. Headley called Pakistani military officers at the number while working for Lashkar; the number was also called by an accused ISI spy who went on a secret mission with Mir in India in 2005, investigators say.

    The Pakistani government publicly denies any official link to the 2008 attacks.

    “Why should there have been involvement of the Pakistani government in the Mumbai attacks at a time when Pakistan and India were dealing seriously with issues between them?” said a senior Pakistani official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “The Mumbai incident provided a pretext for India to shy away from settling the contentious issues between the two countries.”

    The question of Pakistani government involvement drives a high-stakes debate. Some Western anti-terrorism officials think that, at most, Pakistani officials provided limited state support for the Mumbai attacks. A senior US counterterrorism official believes a few mid-level Pakistani officials had an inkling of the plot but that its dimensions surprised them. Others speculate that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari may even have been a secondary target because of his overtures to India and his opposition to extremism.

    “Perhaps it was done by people who didn’t like the way the ISI and the army were moving, particularly in Kashmir,” a European official said. “Maybe it was a rogue operation destabilizing the Pakistanis as well as the Indians.”

    In contrast, a number of Western and Indian anti-terrorism officials cite the in-depth scouting, amphibious landing and sophisticated communications as signs of Pakistan’s involvement. Headley’s disclosures and Lashkar’s history make it hard to believe that military leaders were unaware of the plan, they say. Indian leaders go as far as accusing the ISI of planning and executing the attacks alongside Lashkar.

    “It was not just a peripheral role,” Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai said publicly in July. “They were literally controlling and coordinating it from the beginning till the end.”

    Mir and Maj. Iqbal are keys to the mystery because they allegedly connect Lashkar and the government. Western and Indian investigators suspect that Mir is a former military or ISI officer, or at least had close links to the security forces. They believe that Maj. Iqbal was an ISI officer using a code name. A recent Interpol notice of an Indian arrest warrant gives only his rank and last name.

    It remains to be seen whether Mir, Maj. Iqbal and other suspected plotters will be successfully prosecuted. An Indian court convicted the lone surviving gunman in June. But US officials say the Pakistani trial of the Lashkar military chief and six lower-level suspects captured last year seems hopelessly stalled.

    Pakistani leaders say they have gotten tougher on Lashkar, freezing its assets and appointing an administrator at its headquarters.

    “The government is working to prevent the preaching of extremism, bring them into the mainstream and implement curriculum changes,” the senior Pakistani official said.

    Critics call the crackdown largely symbolic, however. Lashkar camps, a longtime magnet for Western extremists attracted by slick English-language propaganda, still train aspiring fighters, a senior US counterterrorism official said last week. And Pakistani leaders seem reluctant to confront the group and risk backlash from its trained fighters and the vast support base it has built through its charities and social programs.

    Unlike al-Qaeda and other militant groups, Lashkar has not attacked the Pakistani government. But its professionalism, global networks and increasing focus on Western targets have made it one of the most dangerous forces in terrorism, many investigators say. Recent warnings of Mumbai-style plots by al-Qaeda in Europe reflect Lashkar’s influence in the convergence of militant groups that a British official calls “the jihadist soup in Pakistan.”

    “The American side is telling us that Lashkar is as much of a threat as al-Qaeda or the Taliban,” the senior Pakistani official said.

    As the second anniversary of Mumbai approaches, the families of the victims are waiting for authorities to keep their promises of justice.

    “We are not going to give up,” said Moshe Holtzberg, a brother of the slain rabbi. “The families want to see full justice being done for all those organizations and individuals involved in the Mumbai attacks.”

    ProPublica reporter Sharona Coutts and researchers Lisa Schwartz and Nicholas Kusnetz contributed to this report.)

    Nailing the neighbour: 26/11 investigation

    More on ProPublica

  53. MilesToGo


    What is that you did not like in the “Letter from Gangster” article?

    Are you trying to defend the “Don” now?

  54. Bade Miyan

    “consociationalism as a political system”

    Just wondering, who got the word “consociationalism” first, you or AG Noorani?

    “This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan”

    That is a bit of a stretch: He didn’t exactly “jump” at the opportunity.

    A few more queries:
    (1) What is wrong in assuming that Jinnah wanted Pakistan?
    (2) Was he sad after Pakistan was granted? If so, was he sad because he got a “moth-eaten” country?
    (3) Do you think, in present day Kashmir, people are using their cry for freedom as a concessional tool? There are a lot of analysts who believe so..

    Before this theory gained ground, I had a much better impression of Jinnah. I shall explain my views later.

  55. MilesToGo


    Guys don’t forget to watch latest Lucman show – there is a very enlightening discussion on “Islamic Contract Marriage” – Muttah…

  56. YLH

    Yawn farid. You should take a course in English comprehension.

  57. YLH

    Bade I think I used it first.


    MilesToGo had gone on a long tangent. However, his succint blurb about Muttah (Time marriage sanctioned by All Mighty God in the Holy ur’an) is a pearl of great wisdom … I wish that the two Art doyennes in KaraCHI and LaWHORE (both semi-imported + misogynied maimsahibs) were worth occasional muttawing-with as role-model of proactive Expressionist Art Criticism.

    About His Excellency Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the views of YLH are preferred and praiseworthy from aesthetic, historical and mathematical point of view.

    Nonetheless, the picture of the Quaide Azam on the top of the YLH essay could be replaced with a better sketch/portrait. Jinnah, undoubtedly, was a stunningly handsome person which, inter alia, needs to be graphically acknowledged. And magnanimously recorded.

  59. YLH

    PEER sb I am honored. There are many good portraits of the Quaid …but I chose this one as being slightly odd …

    I don’t have internet access right now but if you can suggest an alternative, I’ll happy to pass it along to other moderators/editors.

  60. MilesToGo

    I was watching the latest of Raza versus Pracha on one of the Pakistani shows.

    I know Raza and YLH are making great efforts for reclaiming the history and space that the Pracha’s (JII) of Pakistan have hijacked and encroached. The way I see it as a duel between 1 to 5% humans in Pakistan versus 10 to 15% Islamists and the audience are the rest of Pakistanis – who 1) don’t want to be killed 2) don’t want to anger Allah

    Let’s ignore 1) for now but 2) is the problem. 2) is where the 10-15% Islamist will always win. Thats where you need Ghamdis of Pakistan.

    I say gather as many Ghamdi’s as you can find. Send them somewhere they can’t be killed and let them prepare answers for “Prachas” that the 80% “audience” Pakistanis will swallow without the fear of Allah. This is the defensive plan.

    The offensive is to get the “Prachas” off the high horse. Most are hypocrites. After the “Prachas” go home, they are probably watching Aishwarya Rai and Katrina Kaif secretly. Although this gets a little dirty, but for the kind of audience, this works. Do some sting operations and expose their hypocrisy.

    What say?

  61. Kaalket

    If i have understood correctly , M.A Jinnah or Pakistan’s whole case rest on one “fact” that Hindus should not govern or rule India and if they do it is against Muslim interests so must be opposed .

  62. YLH

    No as usual you are unable to understand correctly.

    His case rested on the fact that given Muslim majorities at the extremities Muslims should also have a piece of the pie.

  63. Pankaj

    Dear YLH you are wasting your time by

    1. Analysing Jinnah’s secular credentials
    2. Analysing What Jinnah wanted
    3. Analysing Jinnah’s August 11 speech.

    The best thing would be to create a group of reformists having moderates from
    1.Army ie if any retired general is now regretting the past mistakes
    2 Moderate Religious leaders and sectarian leaders
    3 Civil society people like educationists, economists ,judges media people and above all moderate politicians like Imran khan

    If all moderates come on ONE platform Pakistan can freed from religious extremism

  64. YLH

    Really you think Imran Khan is a moderate? wow.

    Looks like you are completely out of touch with Pakistan’s reality.

    This article is not addressed to Indians and frankly I am not interested in advice from you guys about what is a waste of time and what is not.

  65. poke

    EDITED for abuse.

  66. YLH

    Someone please remove this idiot.

  67. amar

    Everyone writing on the PTH is an idiot. Remove them all!

    That was meant just as a piece of humor.

    ylh’s scholarship is immense but wrongly directed.

    ylh is an example of “much detailed part-information and no wisdom”.

    The way he will react to this will show.

  68. YLH

    One more thing … Samachar asked if Jinnah used the word confederation. He used the word confederacy…when he got A Punjabi to change the name of his Scheme from “Pakistan” to a “Confederacy of India”.

    Jinnah’s contention was that an all India center was a British creation and that the natural form for India was to have autonomous or even independent units working together in a union or in a confederacy…

  69. no-communal


    MilesToGo, I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading through your two long comments above (November 17, 2010 at 4:08 am, November 17, 2010 at 5:32 am). Although the first one is a good example of what a precocious 3 year old is capable of, care to explain why they are relevant on a thread about whether or not Jinnah wanted Pakistan.

  70. no-communal

    Clarification: By “precocious 3 year old is capable of ” I implied the author of that “letter” (how old is he), not you.

  71. gandhi

    Basic question is why Muslim’s interests need to be safeguarded? Shouldn’t interests of every one be safeguarded? If hindus were so oppressive then how come they allowed Muslims to live among them for so many hundreds of years.

    It does not make common sense that certain people based on their length of their beard or length of their clothes would like to claim themselves special and would like to lord over others.

  72. YLH

    Such small minds really.

  73. gandhi

    Jinah wanted a good rent and an Anglo living in his creation be it his Malbar Hill Bungalow or the land west of Wagha and Kutch. Baki is wordy duplicity to fool the ignoramous.

  74. Chote Miyan

    “After the “Prachas” go home, they are probably watching Aishwarya Rai and Katrina Kaif secretly.”

    While that is a possibility, judging from the content surfed by the pious folks in Pakistan, the “Prachas” are more likely to watch Abhishek Bacchan than Aishwariya Rai.

  75. YLH

    The answer to the question “did Jinnah want Pakistan?” is that Jinnah wanted Pakistan but his Pakistan was neither theocratic nor at odds with the rest of India but was rather envisaged within a confederacy with the rest of India or treaty arrangements.

    As and when we in Pakistan realise the enormous economic advantages of our neighborhood, Pakistan will underscore Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan.

  76. a good article, a different view,
    and i whole heartedly agree about ur comment about moin miya
    now regarding pakistn

    i agree pakistan was a ploy to get more gurantee for the muslim intrest,
    and also that it back fired, bec on whose intrest it was being bargained namely the m muslims of hindi majority provonce suffered the most and still do, they needed sucirity more then the muslim of muslim majority province, the north west, punjab, sind ect for all practical purpose would be pakistn even if it was in india due to muslim majority

    partition benofeted india mpor in the long run, bec in united india too many concession would have to be given to muslim league, the 14 point demand they put was not tenable eg like 50% representaion in all govt org including military, assembly, urdu as national language, diff flag, cannot decalre war or ally with any country against any muslim country ect
    this would creat quite a choas, and govt would hardly worlk as bothe hindu and muslim legislator would be only opposing each other

    and in the end there would be partition and india would lose more territory, minimum the entire punjab, bengal,kashmir and assam would go to pakistn based on muslim majority, and ther would be mor loss of life

    the other point is i dont consider jinnah secular simply bec he ordered direct action which killed many people, he may be secular but his action were not, and it makes no sense, if u oredr a riot in the name of religion u re not secular plain and simple

    i agree jinnah was a briliant layer and states mam, he set out to achive bakistn and he got it by out smarting the congres, he had guts
    but in the end he was dissapointed as he got moth eaten pakistn as he claimed

  77. Kaalket

    The predominance of economic interest among Sindhi, Baluchi, Pathan and Pak Panjabis will disintegrate the current Pakistan. Pak Panjabis who dominate the national affairs have the weakest economic card . Sindh and Baluchistan have the Ocean and raw material and Pushtuns sit on strategic cross roads , what is there which Lahorites can offer as an economic incentive? MAJ was right in using Islam as tool/ glue for founding the country. if Pakistani Who is Who has the screwed up religious sense then its no one else ‘ fault.

  78. YLH

    I have discussed Direct Action Day in detail in a two part series. I hope some day Indians will have the good sense of reading history for what it is and not what they want it to be. Jinnah had nothing to do with the calcutta violence which in any event was directed against Muslims.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  79. YLH

    An entirely irrelevant comment Kaalket.

  80. Samachar

    I hope one day Pakistanis will write history as it is, not as they want it to be.

  81. Amit Kumar

    I am reading V. S. Naipaul’s book, “Beyond Belief”. He calls Pakistan a criminal enterprise. Started with looting of Sikh’s and Hindus. As per him about 40% of the wealth of today’s Pakistan belonged to Sikh’s and Hindus before independence.

  82. Kashif Jahangiri


    Your last sentence in the latest post (1:34am) reminds me of an article of yours (perhaps the first one of yours that I had read). The theme of the article was that the shining India of today was a reflection of Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan and, in contrast, the Pakistan (by glorifying its poverty) of today was more of a reflection of Gandhi’s vision. Am I right?

  83. Bilal

    YLH, an insightful article. But I am disappointed at your unabashed, almost naive praise of Mr Najam Sethi. The fact that this uncritical puerile approach is adopted by a lawyer is even more disheartening. First, the need to bring in personal traits normally betrays a lack of faith in one’s argument. If an argument is strong enough, and there is faith in its strength, it should stand on its own feet without the need to justify it through personal merits or de-merits of someone else. So glorifying Mr. Sethi was somewhat gratuitous. Secondly, Mr. Sethi is a rascal and a scoundrel. He has never publicly made or supported an argument against the US (that is after his trotsky-ite, younger years). He teamed up with that oaf Salman Taseer and dished out the agenda of PPP-Z(ardari), packaging it as the truth. That is hardly honest. Even during his days of the editor of the Daily Times, the newspaper was seen as the mouthpiece of the Zardari-Taseer cabal. That is hardly a stellar symbol of journalistic independence. So next time, could I please request that you spare us the gratuitous adulation of Mr. Sethi and just focus on the argument at hand.

  84. Amit Kumar

    I think Najam Sethi is an honest man. I always respect him for that. somtimes he exaggerate.
    I was surprised by his analysis of Obama’s speech in Indian parliament on 11/8, which he later corrected to some extend on 11/9.

  85. direct action was ordered by shuwardy, and he was a muslim league member and leader of bengal and subbordinate of jinnah

    i am not implying only hindus were killed and muslim were not

    what i am implying is there was a heavy loss of life,
    i agree direct action was not started to kill hindus, but when u start such a mass movement in a communaly sensitive region and time things can go wrong and it did, so the people and organisation who ordered it have to take the blame. as they should have been better informed about their action
    unles this is what they wanted

    regarding jinnah many may hate him but most will agree he was dignified, cool and a better leader then gandhi, and secular in the sense of religious practice on a personal level,

  86. Vishnugupta


    What can we do with a better understanding of Jinnah’s intent? His iconic status in Pakistan will remain undiminished whichever way his intent is interpreted. In India the politics of today is not guided by an understanding of the intent of the founders. The founders definitely inspire those who know better, but few names among the founders’, if any, carry any weight with the voting masses. How will it help me, an Indian, relate to you a Pakistani? And if indeed Jinnah did not want Two Nations divided, do we want to come together as a federation of sorts?

    We in India are looking ahead, we do not want to commit the mistakes of the past, and we believe an orderly (not peaceful, mind you) neighborhood is in our interest and will help us sustain and increase our rate economic growth, from which will flow the surpluses to found a progressive welfare state, and a powerful military that can protect Indian interests anywhere.

    Pakistan it seems desires a dramatic victory over India in the belief that it would inspire its citizens to come together in ways so far unseen or unknown, and help create a state so modern and powerful that it would dwarf every state in the neighborhood.

    How is a changed understanding of Jinnah going to help either set of interests?

  87. Samachar

    Confederation? Seems to me Jinnah shot down Sir Cripps’ proposal for precisely that.

    April 16, 1946 – Cabinet Delegation and Jinnah

    Mr. Jinnah asked how Pakistan came in under the proposed all-India Union.

    The Secretary of State said that briefly there were two propositions – a small Pakistan with sovereign rights and a treaty relation, and a larger Pakistan including broadly the present Provinces except Assam and subject perhaps to some frontier adjustment. The latter would come together with Hindustan on terms of equality within an all-India Union for the essential purposes of defence and foreign affairs. Sir S. Cripps said that under the second alternative two Federations would be created linked by a Union Centre. The {princely}States would come in either at the Union or the Federation level and there would be equal representation of Hindustan and Pakistan at the Union level. The communal balance would be retained at the Centre by some means even if the States came in there.

    Mr Jinnah asked how the Union Executive would be formed.

    Sir S. Cripps said that the Federations would choose the members of the Union Executive.

    Mr Jinnah asked how, if there were equal representation, decisions were to be reached and Sir S. Cripps said that there would be no Union Parliament. The responsibility would go back to the two Federations if agreement could not be reached and differences could only be decided by inter-Governmental agreement.

    Mr Jinnah expressed doubts as to whether this arrangement would work in practice. Matters would have to be decided everyday in regard to defence. From what had been said he had not been able to get anything which would enable him to say that the Union idea was worth considering.

    The Secretary of State emphasised that the essence of the Union scheme was the equality of the two component parts which made it entirely different from a Centre in which the Hindus had a majority. {Thereby doing what Hodson mentioned and that Jinnah supposedly endorsed.}

    In so far as the Muslim League’s claim as to the territory of Pakistan would be conceded the Muslims would have control by majority of large areas in all except the essential Union subjects and there they would meet the Hindus on a level where it was the States which counted and not the number of individuals in them.

    Of course, the Secretary of State did not know whether the Congress would agree to this principle of equality but it was the essence of the proposal.

    Mr Jinnah said that no amount of equality provided on paper was going to work. Equality could not exist between the majority and a minority within the same governmental system. Would there, for example, be equality of each community in the Service? A Treaty of mutual defence between two separate States was quite different. It operated in certain contingencies such as external attack, but at other times and in other matters the States were separate.

    He did not think that the domination of the Muslims by the Hindus could be prevented in any scheme in which they were kept together. It is only when the Muslims are the majority in Pakistan and the Hindus in Hindustan that you have sufficient united force running through the State from the top to bottom to provide a “steel frame” which can hold it together.

    The Secretary of State said that Mr Jinnah seemed to be turning to the other alternative and asked Mr Jinnah’s views on that. Mr Jinnah said that once the principle of Pakistan was conceded the question of the territory of Pakistan could be discussed. His claim was for the six provinces but he was willing to discuss the area. The first question was whether the principle was accepted……..

    …..The Secretary of State said that if Mr Jinnah got his two steel frames set up by agreement he could see the force of the case he put forward. If, however, Mr Jinnah did obtain otherwise than by agreement more than the Muslim-majority districts he would find himself in a very vulnerable situation subsequently…..{and he was unlikely to get that agreement.}

    ….The Secretary of State said that the Delegation was not asking Mr Jinnah to commit himself to anything but merely to say whether he would prefer the matter to be considered on the basis of sovereignty and the small area or a Union and a larger area.

    Mr Jinnah said that as far as the Union was concerned he could not accept the principle. On the other hand he claimed the six Provinces and if Congress considered that that was too much they should say what they considered he ought to have.


    It is rather clear here that Jinnah thought that nothing but two entirely sovereign states with possibly a mutual defence treaty would work. There could be no common institutions between the two states. This does not constitute a confederation.

    Let us remember what a confederation is:

    “A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.”

  88. Kashif Jahangiri


    I think the real understanding of Jinnah is not focussed towards India. In fact, it is in the interest of Pakistan in order for it to achieve its full potential. Yasser’s earlier article (referred to in my post above) attributes the success of India as a country to its following the principles of Jinnah (progressive, forward looking and trying to excel in professional life) and it attributes the failures in Pakistan to following the principles of Gandhi (cherishing and symbolising poverty).

    Having said the above, I believe a forward looking Pakistan is as much in the interest of India as is in the interest of us Pakistanis. I take this forum as an attempt to make that change happen (that Pakistan is established on the real Jinnah principles). Unfortunately, some folks from India are resisting that change, which is obvious from their comments. I can only sympathise at their mental health.

  89. Samachar

    Jinnah’s address to the AIML Delhi April 43

    “We are asked by some Constitutional Pandits, why can’t there be some sort of loose federation or

    “We are opposed to any scheme, nor can we agree to any proposal, which has for its basis any conception or idea of a central government – federal or confederal – for it is bound in the long run to lead to the emasculation of entire Muslim nation, economically, socially, educationally, culturally, and politically and to the establishment of the Hindu majority raj in this sub-continent”.

    This is from exactly the same speech where Jinnah is said to have objected to Pakistan as an idea foisted on him by the Hindu press {this is the spin Ayesha Jalal puts on it}.

  90. Milestogo

    To Indians

    when we first read articles like this on jinah, the first thought that comes to mind is that how and why is jinah relevant today. Elsewhere that may have been true but in Pakistan case jinah and history are very importan because Islamist have hijacked both and ylh and others are trying to reclaim it. Correct me if I am wrong…

  91. Milestogo

    Jinah might or might not be Islamist but if arguing that he was indeed a secularist can turn around Pakistan i the direction of secularism then it is a win win for everyone.

  92. Hayyer


    “We in India are looking ahead, we do not want to commit the mistakes of the past, and we believe an orderly (not peaceful, mind you) neighborhood”

    What does that mean-an orderly neighbourhood in a state of war? How does it work out?

  93. Bade Miyan

    I must say Jinnah was an extremely complicated man. Hard man to understand and predict.

  94. Vishnugupta


    We look forward to order, although peace is preferable, but Indian statecraft has always been realistic, firmly rejecting notions of idealism. Kautilya said it >2500 years ago, that the basic rule or rule-lessness is matsya nyaya – law of the fish – the big fish will eat the small fish. Peace is an ideal while order is an objective. Peace cannot be achieved in decades or with minimal force. The Entente Cordiale came after a 1000 years of conflict with the last few decades of order representing a petering out of violent conflict. The US-Japanese peace today exists after millions of lives snuffed out. Which is why we seek order, knowing fully well it is temporary and attainable. As of now I am not at all hopeful of state of peace with Pakistan, definitely not in my lifetime. Much has happened in Pakistan as I can see over the last 20 years. There is a new group of realistic thinkers who are coming to terms with where their country lies, although they are nowhere as critical or brutally honest as Indian thinkers or even the masses have been and continue to be. But the temptation to deflect and share this critical point of view, generalising it as a South Asian problem, points to a certain lack of hard headedness. Take Kashif quoting Yasser “India…following the principles of Jinnah (progressive, forward looking and trying to excel in professional life) and…the failures in Pakistan to following the principles of Gandhi (cherishing and symbolising poverty)” which if is what Yasser truly means, is grotesque beyond bizarre. India’s progressive institutions owe much to the vision of its modern founders, Nehru and Ambedkar; its liberalism is due to several luminaries, Minoo Masani and DV Gundappa; its ideas on economic liberalism owe much the decade long work of Rajaji and his Swatantra Party. Building a broadbased leadership of men and women from all classes, and corners of the land took great vision. The speaker of the Lok Sabha, Meira Kumar – a former foreign service officer and a scholar of Spanish, is the daughter of Babu Jagjivan Ram, a scheduled caste leader who worked with Gandhi. India has provided extraordinary political mobility, empowering groups decade after decade. Gandhi would have wanted much more, but this is in no way off his line thinking. What a contrast with Pakistan, which after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan has not had a selfless leader. That is not following Gandhi, by any stretch of imagination.

  95. Karun

    “We are opposed to any scheme, nor can we agree to any proposal, which has for its basis any conception or idea of a central government – federal or confederal – for it is bound in the long run to lead to the emasculation of entire Muslim nation, economically, socially, educationally, culturally, and politically and to the establishment of the Hindu majority raj in this sub-continent”

    eye opening evidence


    The above-mentioned correspondent “Gandhi” G. is quite correct to the extent of asserting that everyone but everyone’s rights are significant and must be safeguarded without discrimination and sans double-standards.

    The Hindus are NOT inherently biased, antagonist or anti-anyone Else (as ‘Maleechh”). Saint Thomas received refuge and solace in India when reprehensibly persecuted in Palestine-of-the-Past. The first Islamic mosque was constructed in Kerala while Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was alive. When Hazrat Imam Hussain, ES; and His Worthy Companions were martyred by Yazid’s hikred guns and his Acting CinC; the heads of the martyrs were respectfully gathered by Hindu merchants visiting Arabia from Kerala/Yemen etc.

    The Combined India, in fact had been functioning as “The America” of the old world, an exemplar of Equal Opportunity and Hard Work ethics for one and all until the Raj which introduced Divide-And-Rule, encouraging Mullah and Moolaw. Most of our Elite today consists of gigloes and goons of thye past who satisafied The White Overlords’ needs (some DCs had 700 lithe indigenous beauties in their harems). That is my humble perception. Less is More!

    The utter suffering and misery and Helplessness of the common denizen in Pakistan (and to a lesser extent in its surrounding countries) is not the making of the genuine Jinnah, or for that matter the authentic Gandhi. History cannot be sensibly calibrated based on systemic stereotypes, or by invoking do-it-yourself platitudes as order of the day.

    We, in Pakistan, now need stringent transparency and most anxious accoluntability within the Constitutional framework where nobody enjoys special status … for example, judiciary is primus inter pares but must act impartially and cease and desist from soliciting any immunity or impunity. All the Legal Calling must rise to the occasion.

    India’s (Jhelum born) Prime Minister Inder Gujral Sahib used to quote a stanza from some Tamil Nadu’s Urdu poet:

    And last Monday, Barrister Syyed Iqbal Jafree reminded, in open court, to the august DB of Honourable Senior Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chowdhry+ Justice Farooq DB (Seeking to reopen the Writ regarding Mir Aimal Kasi – – who was illicitly (and surreptitiously) ‘authorized’ to be hunted down by FBI+CIA in DGK without any judicial or extradition proceedings – – [nunc pro tunc 1998-2002]):
    Justice in Pakistan has melted into just ice… Jafree reminded the High Court about Cromwelkl and the Former Prime Minister of Hungary’s ordeals and Redemption.

    To hell with the Jaggernathing Mullah (fetish on 72 tripple-breasted Virgin-Huris awaiting Nauth-Breaking him in Herr Hypothetical Heavens), in Islam every wrongful decision is subject to Rajoo Minelle Khittaw per Articles 1-10, 194,36,187,227 of the Constitution (=Writ Error Coram Nobis = We Made An Mistake). Pandora boxes are not sacrosanct, Jafree igorously argued in re: RA 166/2002 where the DB (Jilani and Khosa) had observed: “The water has passed over the heads”, and Jafree cautioned humbly, ‘Not Yet! Just wait and See’. Jafree said that a wrong is usually punished after it is committed because that operates Quia Timet (Peshbaandi) as prevention against future Outrages.

    That waiting is over, with the grace of God! The chickens are coming home to Roast…

    Forgive me, I am no scholar, just a wannabe Honest-to-Goodness Art Critic (Pakistan needed one since its inception sothat in stead of aesthETHICS, sheer Mediocrity is not practised-endlessly perpetually) striVing for twelve years of rigorous internship. I hail from a lower middle-class background. We conscientiously pay our income-taxes meticulously and operate no forex accounts anywhere. I sign my real name. My father’s name is (the late) PEER ASGHAR ALISHAH which is also my home and Post Office. I will appreciate no commentgs in stead of Nuisance NonSense.

  97. Samachar

    There is a further note to be made which goes to the heart of Pakistani secularism. In the Presidential address to the All India Muslim League in Lahore, 1940, Jinnah quoted Lala Lajpat Rai:

    “There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Mohammedan unity.. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammedan leaders in the non-cooperation movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind.”

    “You remember the conversation I reported to you in Calcutta which I had with Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr Kitchlu. There is no finer Mohammedan in Hindustan than Hakim Ajmal Khan, but can any Muslim leader override the Koran? I can only hope that my reading of the Islamic law is incorrect.”

    Jinnah continued to laughter: “I think his reading is quite correct”.

  98. amar

    ylh leaves no stone unthrown in order to run down Gandhi. I am no Gandhi fan. But such a visceral hatred towards a dead person, who for all his blunderous ways sincerely sought peace and harmony between all, even to the extent of sacrificing the interests of his own people (the hindus – for which he was killed by one of them) – that requires some psychological deep-analysis.

    ylh’s fervent denialism in trying to give Jinnah a superior status in all matters is pathetic.

    Jinnah may have been whatever he was before 1946. But after 1946 he definitely is no grand statesman. His blunders are actually crimes. Even as death approached him fast he stuck to the GG-ship instead of stepping out (after wisely appointing a hindu GG, even one from among those hindus who had fled from Pakistan, as his successor) and making an honest review of all that he had done or said and puting it down in writing and making the final clarifications (removing all doubts about what he wanted and how he wanted it to be done), getting rid of the contradictions and ambiguities which he had (knowingly or unknowingly) committed.

    Resurrecting Jinnah seems to be the hope of some in Pakistan. But the contradictions and ambiguities which he left behind make such hope vain.

    Why do Pakistanis specialize in such wasteful discussions and dreams?

  99. Pankaj

    Leaders of every country want success for their nation.
    However The policies they choose MUST BE periodically reviewed .

    For eg Nehru gave us socialism and Non alignment BOTH of which we have dumped

    India’s socialism obsession should have ended earlier
    Similarly Pakistan’s dangerous flirtation with Islamic fundamentalism went on for too long .

    It started in 79 .Even after 9/11 it continued.
    After 2007 , Benazir’s assasination , people realised the size and magnitude of the problem.

    BUT even now extremism in Pakistan is considered as

    1. Result of US occupation of Afghanistan and Indian rule in Kashmir.
    2. Poverty ,unemployment and rich poor divide

    The Pak army is NOT willing to change its policy
    So extremism will continue

  100. Samachar

    “Ayesha Jalal holds: “By apparently repudiating the need for any centre, and keeping quiet about its shape, Jinnah calculated that when eventually the time came to discuss an all-India federation, British and Congress alike would be forced to negotiate with organised Muslim opinion, and would be ready to make substantial concessions to create or retain that centre. The Lahore resolution should therefore be seen as a bargaining counter, which had the merit of being acceptable (on the face of it) to the majority-province Muslims, and of being totally unacceptable to the Congress and in the last resort to the British also. This, in turn, provided the best insurance that the League would not be given what it now apparently was asking for, but which Jinnah in fact did not really want” (The Sole Spokesman; page 57). ”

    The problem with this theory is that we have the interview of Jinnah by the Cabinet Delegation in 1946 where Jinnah repudiates any union, that I excerpted above.

    — And in this light, I would love to see the complete text of “Jinnah to Nawab S.M. Ismail, 25 November 1941, QAP/10/File No. 1092, p. 143” where he “admitted: ‘I think Mr Hodson finally understands as to what our demand is”, and these truths are “likely to be misunderstood especially at present”. My bet is Ayesha Jalal, with her otherwise untenable thesis, is selectively quoting this.

  101. Pankaj

    Jinnah wanted the best for Pakistan.
    But since the situation was too complex it was not easy to get the perfect deal for Muslims.

    The partition of Bengal and Punjab was the first blow to Jinnah.

    Jinnah must have seen that Pakistan would be dominated by the clergy, military and landlords.

    He was too smart to have NOT visualised it .

    Jinnah’s hopes for a succesful Pakistan lay on an empowered , moderate and educated middle class
    which was consipicuously absent alone .

    India’s first decade was crucial

    India fortunately had an educated middle class even in 1947 , which went about the task of nation building along with the political leadership.

    The Indian bureaucracy which was called the Indian Civil service did a very commendable job in the first decade of territorial unification , holding 2 elections 1952, 1957 .

    The five year plans rolled out , industrialisation started, educational institutes started in a big way and scientific technological progress too was given shape.
    Hindu social reforms and land reforms were legislated.

    The Military too was apolitical

  102. amar

    If muslims would not have had this petroleum under their feet (nothing that they created or worked for or made valuable) then they, as muslims, would have had zero value in the world.

    Apart from petroleum, muslims have value only as a ruthless, dishonest, totalitarian-imperialist power or as mischief-makers and minions for some imperialist power (US, China etc.)

    Any other choice they have not. The pak army knows this best.

    No one, not even the arabic god, could have stopped Pakistan’s downslide into what it is today. In fact this arabic god holds major responsibility for causing this downslide.

  103. YLH

    After so many comments you still have a single answer to why Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan.

    You are trying to prove that Jinnah asked for a separate sovereign state …something which Ayesha Jalal has not disputed.

    Do you think by going in circles you will deny history.

    I just pity the idiots who can’t see the obvious dishonesty with which you and your sister have tried to obfuscate a historical reality…

    Why don’t you state clearly what it is that you are trying to prove?

    1. Is that Jinnah clearly and consistently articulated the demand for a sovereign Pakistan between 1940-1947?

    2. Is it that this was an earnest and serious demand and not open to negotiation?

    If 1 is your position then that is obvious. That is why we are having this discussion.

    But if 2 is your position, then you have to explain why Jinnah scaled back all he had said so massively between 1940-1946 when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan.

    So far you have not written anything that seems to prove your point.

  104. YLH

    It is rather ironic that the Hindu fascists like Samachar (aka Sadna Gupta) and Islamo-fascists (like Jamaat e Islami) who were the same people who opposed Jinnah in his life time … now refer to 1940 speech… but ask us not to look at 11th August speech.

    The 1940 speech was made by the leader of an Indian Party suggesting constitutional alternatives to Government of India Act 1935. Pakistan was not even a gleam in his eye… Infact the famous Lahore Resolution did not even name “Pakistan”.

    1947’s 11th August speech was made by the founding father of a new dominion about to be founded in a day made before the first constituent assembly’s inaugural session that was to kickstart the process of constitution making for this dominion.

    Whatever Jinnah said in 1940 was a lawyer-politician articulating the case of his constituents. Nothing passed in the Lahore Resolution committed the future state of Pakistan to one ideological position. Jinnah’s 11th August speech was a policy statement by the head of the state and its first president of the constituent assembly who was also the father of the nation.

    How then could the 1940 speech – whatever ridiculous interpretation Hindu fascists or Islamo-fascists for their own vested interests want to attach to Jinnah posthumously after attacking him and abusing him in his life time- go to the heart of Pakistani secularism. Whether idiots like Samachar and Moin Ansari admit it or not… Jinnah made the 11th August speech and that speech takes precedence both legally and morally as being latter in time and being made in a legal and political capacity far superior to that which president of All India Muslim League enjoyed in British India in 1940.

    I wonder why Pakistani secularism upsets crooks, cranks and madmen so much on both sides of the border.

    Moderators please take care of this idiot.

  105. Pankaj

    Dear YLH

    The thing is that “Pakistani secularism” just does not exist.
    Even if Jinnah said that Pakistan should be secular he didnt really mean it

    And he surely ALONE could not have created a secular state without the help of other powerful groups like army, clergy and landlords.

    Politicians say many things. And when a new nation is being created then the world has its eyes on it.

    So Jinnah must have said that August 11 speech for western/ European consumption or simply for the Indian politicians.

    SO Trying to prove that Pakistan was intended to be secular is like trying to sell SNAKE oil to my fellow Indians.

    So they start jumping all over this beautiful forum

    A secular state comes into being ONLY when the large majority of people and their leaders support it.

    In India’s case RSS after independence was marginalised .

    The BJP has come into prominence only after 1990
    Even BJP /RSS have not been able to change the basic secular character of Indian Nation

  106. YLH

    Nonsense. Indians think they invented secularism. When I use the term secularism I mean the secularism that was the outcome of European enlightenment. Indian secularism is no model for us nor do I consider it truly secular.

    Jinnah spoke of due course. He didn’t care much for “western” or “eastern” powers to appease them. He would have made the 11th August speech on 14th August with Mountbatten and not to his own PCA where western press was not in attendance.

  107. Kashif Jahangiri

    @ Pankaj, Samachar and the likes…

    May I please ask the objectivity behind your posts as to what you are trying to achieve with your rhetorics?

  108. Vishnugupta

    Yasser, surely you know better than to use a term like fascism carelessly.

    I would like to hear from you what you hope to achieve by establishing that Jinnah did not wish to create two nations out of one or even believe that the India of the day consisted of two irreconcilable nations.

  109. YLH

    Nothing that has to do with India.

  110. YLH

    Kashif bhai..

    This is an odd bunch that follows me from website to website. No need to take them any more seriously than Moin Ansari. They are simply obsessed with Pakistan.

    Ref your earlier post. I wrote two articles 1. The future belongs to Jinnah and 2. Jinnah’s India. Yes that is my view.

  111. Pankaj

    India is million times MORE secular Than Pakistan.
    And even better than Western countries who are gripped by Islamo phobia

    Pakistan has just wiped out its minorities.

    When there are such big SECTARIAN conflicts in Pakistan , how can Christian and Hindus expect justice

    With just 3 million Muslims US is going all out against its Muslim population
    Even Europe is turning Anti Muslim in a big way

    Indians have understood ONE THING very well
    No matter what we have to live together with each other , with mutual respect .

    So inspite of Babri Masjid and Gujarat we are still a proud secular Nation

    We will not deny that we have had Anti minority episodes like Babri Masjid, Gujarat ,Anti sikh riots.

    But what matters is how you handle it, HOW you move on, and how to prevent it.

    We havent gone in a free fall Hindu communal frenzy mode as many were predicting after 1992.

    India’s basic character ,both in day to day life as well as constitutionally is secular .

    Pakistanis are free and welcome to have a look

  112. YLH

    There we go. Hindus burn Muslims and Christians alive and are still million times more secular.

    Unfortunately Indians like Pankaj don’t understand what I am talking about. I have not claimed that Pakistan is secular. I am talking about organic secularism that emerges not from fractured multiculturalism but practical necessity. Indian model is not the secular model I prefer or want. I infact dislike it intensely as it is pretentious and fake.

  113. Pankaj

    Dear YLH

    Even considering all the wrongs of Islamic rule Indian culture has been enormously enriched by Islam .We know it and respect it

    You might dislike the Indian secular model It is your personal opinion.NOT a fact

    Globally India is considered a secular country
    Even the OIC countries consider India to be a largely secular country.

    So OIC countries dont side with Pakistan on Kashmir

    No country is “perfectly secular.”
    India has a 1.2 billion people. 150 million muslims.It is not a small number

    Even your best friend China is just killing its Muslim rebel population.

    If you find a better model of secularism please tell us all.

    India and Indians are always open to ” better ideas”

    Rather than going on and on about Jinnah it would make more interesting reading .

  114. no-communal


    Indians are not the target audience of this article. Neither is this blog India-centric. As clearly mentioned at the top, this article is targeted at the Pakistanis. So please, let them respond, and let’s not be a distraction.

  115. amar

    ylh is pretentious. He dislikes everything indian or hindu. For him everything indian or hindu is fake. He supposedly has everything better. So a man who cannot get over his pakistan-ideology upbringing wants to recommend/foist Jinnah to/upon us.

    There are big similarities between Jinnah and ylh. Now the psychological problem of ylh becomes clearer. It also gives us, 70 years later, an idea about why Jinnah failed and how he practised his way of hypocrisy. It also additionally supports the thesis that Pakistan is founded on hate (towards everything hindu) and must continue this policy of hate in order to survive.

    Was there anyone among muslims then who recognized in the 1920’s and onward that Pakistan was based on hate and hate only and warned the muslims about it and correctly forecast what will become of Pakistan (with this arrogant name “land of the pure”)? If there was no such muslim then, it throws light upon the depravity of this arab ideology. Gandhi did warn against a politics of hate. But that only incited Jinnah and the ilk to more hate and slander.

  116. amar

    to no-communal

    Although indians are not forbiding pakistani to write on the PTH there are so few reasonable ones from among them.

    This is because we indians have a greater concern for Pakistan’s well-being. And we recognize that Pakistan is going the worst way due to this arab ideology. It’s going to get worse. Arabs don’t show such concern for Pakistanis because they regard pakistanis as their taken-for-granted quislings. If the arab ideology is keeping pakistanis in a state of mental slavery towards the arabs and the arab god then why would the arabs bother? If pakistanis are ready to give away their natural resources (e.g. the houbara birds) and their self-respect to find favour in the eyes of the arabs then why would arabs criticize? Pakistan is a quisling state. Unless pakistanis re-discover their self-respect there will be no good progress. And Pakistanis can learn self-respect only from those, who did not kneel down in front of the arabs, the arab god and their imperialism-chauvinism.

  117. no-communal


    “So a man who cannot get over his pakistan-ideology upbringing wants to recommend/foist Jinnah to/upon us”

    amar, please, have some decency. This article is emphatically not to foist anything on you and me. If you don’t like it, please don’t read and comment on these articles.

    For Pakistan’s idealogy, they are probably fighting a lonely fight anyway. With all your dislike for anything islamic, why do you want to make it even harder for them? What do you have to gain?

  118. amar

    I repeat:
    “Unless pakistanis re-discover their self-respect there will be no good progress. And Pakistanis can learn self-respect only from those, who did not kneel down in front of the arabs, the arab god and their imperialism-chauvinism.”

    When I say “foisting Jinnah” upon us then I take into consideration that everything that a muslim does, he does it to please the arab god allah. This Jinnah is only a midway station. Sooner or later (even if Jinnah had lived a 101 years) the quisling-like nature of muslims will bring them into conflict with the hindus and India. Hindu (these fools) have been deceived and robbed so often in the past that I must keep warning.

    This idea that there should be and can be a homeland for muslims, where there will be no islamic fascism-imperialism – that is self-deceit. It is like negotiating with the terrorists. They do it only to gain time and strength – not in order to keep their word.

    You can call yourself no-communal. But that does not give you the right to scoff at hindu miseries (past and future) at the hands of the agents of islam.

    You know that famous saying: “You fools me once, shame on you. You fool me twice, shame on me”. And muslims have fooled hindus more than twice.

  119. Milestogo


    think of Jinnah bein painted secular as a “dhakka” that the Pakistani “gadi” needs to start and once it starts – the real jinah could be discussed.

    Ylh and team are already having tough time fighting “prachas” and you are distracting them or may be it’s a good practice for them.

    Although I am afraid that the moment jinah becomes secular he will cease to be good Muslim. Islam is bigger than the personalities. Think of Mughal empror Akbar.

  120. amar

    to milestogo

    you write: “think of Jinnah bein painted secular as a “dhakka” that the Pakistani “gadi” needs to start and once it starts – the real jinah could be discussed.”

    Exactly this has been already tried out over 63 years. You know how Einstein defined foolishness. “Doing the same thing all over again and expecting different results”.

    The liberals will talk of Jinnah pre 1935. The quislings of islamic imperialism and totalitarian experimentation will talk of Jinnah of later years. You know the islamic theory of mansukh – later verses taking precedence over earlier verses (of the kuran). The same logic will bring the liberal muslims to fall. They will save their skins typically by saying “tauba tauba” (we repent) to the islamo-fascists. But where do the hindus and other non-muslims go then? Liberal muslims are neither capable nor willing to protect non-muslims even today. What to speak of later. Islam is the biggest breeder of cowards (that is why so many terrorists from among them) – islam is based on intimidation in the name of an arab god, his hell, apostasy, his totalitarianism etc.

    In his self Jinnah did not believe in islam (that is why he opposed, half-rightly so, Gandhi bringing religion into politics) but his megalomania and his arrogant “I-am-the-saviour-of-the-downtrodden-at-this-crossroad-of-history”-complex and jealousy (of Gandhi) drove him to really something nasty.

    MAJ = Megalomania, Arrogance, Jealousy.

    Hindus (these fools) have been deceived so often that any more would be finally disastrous. They have been exterminated from their Sindhu river basin homeland already by islam and its agents and quislings.

  121. no-communal


    PTH is a Pakistani website. I guess they created it primarily for their own consumption. They have shown grace in opening it for everybody. And you are exploiting what is humility and openness on their part to freely desecrate it as you please.

    You don’t like Jinnah. Fine. But Pakistan is for real and he is their father of the nation. Show some decency by not disrespecting someone’s father so much, especially going to their own backyard uninvited. Occasional disagreements and testy exchanges are fine. But what you are doing is a complete travesty of a civilized discourse. I am actually amazed that YLH is so restrained this time. May be the moderators are putting too many shackles on his legs.

  122. ramesh

    a wasteful dicussion,just look at jinah’s pakistan today,the end result.

  123. Anoop

    Jinnah provides ammo to both the secularists/liberals and Right-wingers. But, Nehru doesn’t.

    India and Pakistan have to a certain extent absorbed the personalities of their first PMs.

    India is clear, like Nehru, what it is- Secular, Plural, Democracy.

    Pakistan, like its founder’s image, is a constant struggle between 2 ideologies.

    Nehru never made any remark or did anything which can be interpreted as being anything but secular. Jinnah batted for both the sides, in the process compromising on what he appeared to stand for.

    I blame Jinnah for the Pakistan that is today. He didnt make things crystal clear even after Partition,except a few lines here and there. Too less considering he just split a country claiming 2 sets of individuals cannot live together peacefully.

    Jinnah was wrong, he is only human.

    Pakistan should move beyond Jinnah.

  124. amar

    to no-communal

    All this talk of decency and respecting their backyard etc. is good. But we are neighbours. The PTH drivers are personally good human beings. Their task is very difficult. I know all that. But if they are repeating old mistakes then I as the neighbour cannot keep quiet.

    I do not like or dislike Jinnah (or Gandhi). I want real solutions coming from them and not the same old broken records (and broken trust). You have no idea of how much hindus have been hurt by the coming of islam into the indian subcontinent. So long islam makes big claims we have to be sceptical. This is not say that hindus are not fools or have committed no crimes. But there is no reason why the agents and quislings of the arabs have to arrogate themselves any rights upon them.

    Have you not noticed which visceral hatred ylh has towards India, hindus and Gandhi? How come he is not being reined in?

  125. no-communal

    I can’t speak for ylh. I haven’t seen him defaming Hinduism. That’s Sardar Khan’s job. Why do you then speak so maliciously about Islam? Is your target audience just Sardar Khan? If yes, let me tell you, he probably doesn’t read responses.

  126. Humanity

    “I want real solutions coming from them and not the same old broken records (and broken trust). You have no idea of how much hindus have been hurt by the coming of islam into the indian subcontinent. So long islam makes big claims we have to be sceptical. This is not say that hindus are not fools or have committed no crimes. But there is no reason why the agents and quislings of the arabs have to arrogate themselves any rights upon them.”

    Islam, the religion of peace and mercy for the entire universe, will flourish in ways that you have no control over. So stop seething and spewing venom which only hurts you and no one else. You need to help yourself. Go take a walk to lower your blood pressure and then work on your internal issues. It will be good for both you and your country!

  127. Vishnugupta

    To any Indian hyperventing here, you are achieving nothing by dominating this thread and making asses of yourself.

    OK, Yasser, if this quest of your has nothing to do with India, but has to do with Pakistan, what is it? What do you hope to change? What debate do you want to provoke?

  128. Samachar

    Vishnugupta – if it wasn’t obvious so far, the goal is a more secular and liberal direction for Pakistan.

  129. Pankaj

    If the goal is To create a liberal Pakistan and to get rid of extremism then Jinnah’s thoughts, dreams , ideas and speeches are a wrong metric to use.

    Because he said so many things as is the wont of Politicians.

    And because He unfortunately didnt live long enough to even lay the foundation of his country on secular liberal lines.

    The ” fog of partition ” if I may use this term didnt allow the luxury of time for Pakistani Intelligentsia to deliberate carefully about the future of the country.

    Add to that Kashmir war, settling refugees, financial difficulties ,And controlling East Pakistan which was so far away made the task
    of laying the foundation of the country impossible

    Jinnah’s death was the final blow.

    Liberal nations like Malaysia and Turkey are LIVE examples of moderate nations.

    Countries have to evolve continuosly .It is a dynamic process.

    Any idea which has outlived its utility or has simply backfired like FUNDAMENTALISM
    should be discarded promptly.

    Unless of course there are vested interests who prefer fundamentalism to moderation

    The whole nation has to rise as one man.

  130. YLH

    I am not sure why Indians are so interested in commenting on it.

    Btw…both Turkey and Malaysia have a strong Islamic undercurrent … but have thankfully secular governments.

    However both Iran and Pakistan as a national psyche and culture more liberal than Turkey and Malaysia but have unfortunately gotten stuck with Islamic republic.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  131. MilesToGo


    think of it as practice, next time raza or you go on tv, go thrash some mullahs.

    good luck

  132. pankaj

    Dear All Pakistani Friends

    Speaking for myself ,I have done a fair bit of research on Pakistan hence I am interested in Pakistani people.

    What i find very sad is that common people are really suffering due to the policies of the rulers.

    The fact is that people’s lives have been hijacked and now people are simply being punished either by the taliban and terrorists on one hand or price rise and un employment on the other.

    The images that I see and the pain on the face of the people is REAL.

    When rulers follow bad policies common people only suffer.

    In India for 40 years we followed wrong economic policies
    At least 2 generations have needlessly suffered

    when foreigners point out the huge number of poor in India The answer is the huge backlog of poor people who could not be lifted out of poverty because our economy grew at ONLY 4 % for 40 years while population increased by 2%

    I only wish the best for Pakistan

  133. Subcontinental

    Whether Jinnah wanted Pakistan or not, the whole world wants Pakistan:

    The British wanted Pakistan, so did Americans and the Chinese. Of course the Pakistanis want Pakistan but most of all the Indians want Pakistan, simply to keep Pakistanis in Pakistan.

    Jinnah saved India and did his Hindu father proud. India is proud of its most brave and selfless son.

  134. pankaj

    Dear YLH and ALL pakistani friends

    You seem to totally misunderstand the genuine concerns of Indians.

    Well your country is in so much trouble and looks like being IRREVERSIBLY MESSED UP.

    so Your anger at Indians is understandable.
    Best of Luck

  135. Alakshyendra

    “His case rested on the fact that given Muslim majorities at the extremities Muslims should also have a piece of the pie.”

    this statement alone is sufficient to establish that jinnah bhai was thinking in terms of “hindu-muslim” and was a communalist.

  136. YLH

    A minority is very different from a majority.

    As for Hindu-Muslim stuff… Jinnah was only a late-comer. Politics leading up to had ensured that religious identities became non-negotiable.

    Whether Jinnah-haters admit or not, Jinnah remains the only leader to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

  137. Samachar

    Lala Lajpat Rai, December 1924:

    It is suggested on behalf of Muslim leaders that–

    (a) Communal representation with separate electorates in all the legislatures, local bodies, Universities, and other official or semi-official bodies should be provided.

    Mr. M. A. Jinnah is the latest recruit to this party, and I really cannot understand how he calls himself a nationalist still. **

    The euphemism that this is only tentative, and that a time will come when the Muslims will be ready to give up communal representation, should deceive no one. Once you accept communal representation with separate electorates, there is no chance of its being ever abolished, without a civil war. A civil war will, again, actually mean the supremacy of one of the communities over the other.

    This lends weight to the fear entertained by some Hindus that some, at least, of the Muslim leaders are counting on the help of foreign Muslim states to establish Muslim rule throughout Hindustan.

    Whether this fear is [or is] not well-founded, it is only natural that those who entertain it should oppose communal representation with all the strength they can command. Their opposition, however, cannot be effective, as the Government seems determined to adopt their [this?] course. Therein they see the best guarantee of the permanence of the present conditions.

    Communal representation with separate electorate is the most effective reply to the demand for Swaraj, and the surest way of India never getting it. I have never been able to appreciate the mentality of those who constantly talk of turning out the British, and at the same time insist on communal representation with separate electorates. I really don’t understand what they mean. The second is the surest way of the first being never realized. The experience of the last three years is the most conclusive proof of it. The Muslim demand strengthens the position of anti­Swarajists both among the Hindus and the Muslims, and supplies an effective reply to the contention that India is ripe for Swaraj.

    Communal representation by itself is a sufficiently bad principle, destructive of, and antagonistic to, the idea of a common nationhood, but separate electorates make this vicious principle immeasurably worse. If our Muslim countrymen are really earnest in their belief in nationalism and in their demand for Swaraj, the least they can do is not to insist on separate electorates.

    ** M. A. Jinnah demanded in 1924 separate electorates for Muslims with a fixed number of seats in every legislature in the country. Speaking under the auspices of the Bombay Provincial Muslim League in October 1924 on Hindu-Muslim Unity, M. A. Jinnah urged the extension of communal representation to Municipalities, Local Boards, and Public Services.

  138. YLH

    And yet Jinnah was open to giving up the separate electorates on several occasions after 1924…

    So once again Samachar is quoting only a selective view of history.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  139. i think Jinnah was also a secular man but honest to be create a Islamic state.Syed Atta Ullah Shah Bukhari said that”who man could not implement Islam on his 1.5 feet body than how could be able to implement islamic law on Huge miles State”.I think Atta Ullah Shah Bukhari was right.Mr.Jinnah was not a bad man but the people who was joined Jinnah was bad and aggent of British.The leaders of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam was not bad.I think the propeganda against the leaders of Ahrar-e-Islam was finished yet.so the relation of Mr.Jinnah that i think he was useless man.I say that he was secular.
    Jinnah was like poke sendvides.I think Mr.Yasir Lateef Hamdani you should more struggle for search the history of Pakistan and Leader of Hurriat like MAJLIS_E_AHRAR_E_ISLAM.

  140. Mr.Jinnah did not want Islamic state but like a secular state like PAKISTAN or ……?

  141. Vajra


    Jinnah was like poke sendvides

    A dimension to the great man that opens up fascinating possibilities. You really must encourage Mr. Cheema; he may be just the antidote to trolls.

  142. hayyer

    He only meant that Jinnah liked poke sendvides not resembled them. Mr. Cheema is superior to the trolls. He at least has an open mind. Jinnah was useless but he was secular and honest. The trolls only half agree; for them he was useless but un-secular. His honesty they reserve judgment on.

  143. no-communal

    I am sorry, what are you guys talking about? What is poke sendvides?

  144. YLH

    Apparently … Poke sendvides is pork sandwiches.

  145. Anoop

    One of my comments was deleted in spite of it not having any derogatory references or abuse.

    Anyway, Good luck to whomsoever it is concerned. Keep your head buried deep into the sand and keep debating Jinnah, a Human Being at the end of the day, and pretending he cant make any mistakes.

  146. YLH

    Anoop none of your comments were deleted as far as I know.

    Please point out which one.

  147. Anoop


    I merely wondered why you said “your” Nehru in my comment which is lost somewhere in cyberspace. Wasn’t Nehru yours too?

    And, had opined that if you had not chosen to shoot with the Gun on Jinnah’s ideological shoulders your message will get across more efficiently.

    Jinnah, had or still has a gray area, even if you are blind to it.

    The values that you think Jinnah stood for do not need Jinnah’s references at all! Secularism, Tolerance to opposing views and Democracy are strong enough not to need the approval of Jinnah.

  148. no-communal


    I agree with your last paragraph. However, talking to many Pakistanis in PTH for a couple months I realized that concepts like secularism etc. apparently have very negative connotation in Pakistani society. There the mullahs and their supporters have successfully projected them as atheism and godlessness. The founding father’s support to these ideas as a talking point may therefore have some value in Pakistan.

    I also agree with you that the moderators do seem to be on the overdrive these days. That is not just with you…

  149. no-communal

    Sorry I spelled your name wrong and sorry again for responding before YLH could.

  150. YLH


    You still haven’t answered the question- why are you so interested in commenting here.

    No-communal has got it… but sadly you are incapable of getting it.

  151. Anoop


    I comment because as the word comment suggests I’ve an opinion. If you are so intolerant then I suggest you make this “blog” available to Pakistani and other Muslim audience, like so many of Pakistani applications ask to prove swear loyalty to the Prophet or something, that will surely drive the non-Muslims away.

    Jinnah was intolerant too to other’s opinion. In spite of being common knowledge that the new Pakistan might struggle to stay together he pressed for it. I see the apple has not fallen too far from the tree.

    In a decade or so, there will be more Internet users in India than the entire population of Pakistan. We are already dominating the Movies, TV, Music and have a heavy influence over pop culture in Pakistan, we will swarm the Pakistani cyberspace too, as we are already doing it.

    So, please use modern technology to achieve your means. Or, stop asking us to not comment. If you are still persistent with it, then I suggest you save a template asking every Indian to move out before you start your comments, it will save a lot of time for you.

  152. YLH

    I am not interested in your advice. Thank you.

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

  153. YLH

    PS: Interesting The Hindu, India’s premier newspaper, has written more about this topic than any Pakistani. Why don’t Indians go and advise The Hindu to stop publishing these articles instead?

    Here is an example: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2217/stories/20050826003003400.htm

  154. Anoop

    Considering you are an admirer and follower of Jinnah, this is not that surprising.

    You are welcome.

  155. Anoop


    On the contrary. These articles should be published and discussed and everyone’s opinion respected. I am not saying you should not air your opinion, but merely suggesting you are a bit off track and you would be better served if you speak of the values you cherish without Jinnah’s mention, which will only make things more muddier than they already are.

  156. YLH

    I am sorry you don’t have a point unless you are willing to write to A G Noorani as well.

  157. Anoop


    You have no idea if I have already done it or not or will I do it in the future, have you. So, my point stands.

  158. YLH

    Now you are contradicting yourself.

  159. amar

    ylh writes:

    “Whether Jinnah-haters admit or not, Jinnah remains the only leader to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.”

    Hindu-ness and muslim-ness are incompatible. This implies that Jinnah was the ambassador of a self-deceit or some phantasy. His later development wherein he became a self-called messias of the muslims is the logical result of islam and its arrogance, its falsified history- narrative and victimhood-cum-superiority complex. In mathematics a function has to be judged not only by its y=f(x) value but also by its dy/dx (or dy/dt) value (i.e. its rate of change). Whether Jinnah was an ambassador of h-m unity or not is thus irrelevant, even misleading, to the developments after 1935. This is where the islamo-fascist taking Pakistan down into the abyss of his violent totalitarian ideology is right in understanding/using Jinnah. What Jinnah would have done had he lived longer? One wonders why allah allowed him to die if he was so importatnt for Pakistan and islam. Is allah powerless against TB bacteria?

    Debates should make sense. Ylh is repeatedly foisting senseless debates upon PTH. But they have, especially because of their senselessness, a big response input. If someone writes 2+2=4 then he will be ignored (like I get ignored), but if someone writes 2+2=5 then he is heaped with loads of responses.

    ylh should have studied not only law but also a bit of maths and medicine.

    The real question is: how to get the muslimized descendants of hindus out of the trap, the self-deceit and the quisling-existence into which this alien arab ideology has put them in the name of a so-called god?

  160. I think we leave this topic and struggle for Pakistan.
    Many people against my opinion than i ‘ve left this topic.Every man has his own and good opinion.
    Mr.hayyer i have worried about you because you can’t accept anything else.
    If Mr.Jinnah is not Secular than anyone tell who are Secular and Drunker…….
    this is a voice of Qasimcheema
    you should contact me…

  161. This is truth Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah had eaten POKE sendvides.I am not jokking.
    Refference is always here….

  162. I think we should struggle against the enemy of Islam and Pakistan especially Qadianis and other Fitnaas.
    We should leave the topic of Mr.Jinnah and was Ahraris right or wrong.We should be struggle for Pakistan…

  163. I am not blamming on mr.jinnah or Nehru…
    Please tell me anyone who was secular????
    Many people on this debate hearting me but I cant’…

  164. no-communal

    Many people on this debate hearting me but I cant’…

    You can’t what?

  165. I am only justifing you that Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was secular.
    I give the proof….
    with referncesss.
    British Empire want Pakistan and break Pakistan…
    what happened in 1971,December.
    Who was the enemy if Islam and Pakistan……
    tell me…..

  166. Ameer-e-Shariat founder of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari said that”Ye qaum danday walay kay aagay aagay or paisay walay key peechay chalti hay”

  167. no-communal

    “I am only justifing you that Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was secular.”

    Good, very good. No need to justify. What’s your problem with that?

    “tell me..”

    Why don’t you tell us.

  168. Founder of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam Chaudery Afzal Haq said that”The vision of made Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam is implement the rule of Allah Almighty”.

  169. no-communal

    Anyway, Cheema Sb., enough wasting time. I should take my leave. The moderators will start complaining about too many Indian posts…

  170. You are right man Mr.”no-communal”
    I agree with you………

  171. Main Offices Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan

    Head Office:Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam,
    Dar-e-Bani Hashim,Meharban Colony
    Near by M.D.A.chowk,Multan

    Office:Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam,Jamia Masjid
    Block #12,Street #04,chichawatni Distt.Sahiwal

    Head Office:Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam,69-C,New
    Muslim town,Wahdat road Lahore

    Jamia Masjid Ahrar,Channab Nagar

    Masjid Abu-Bakar Siddique[R.A],

  172. Subcontinental

    What is the use of this question? Did Jinnah want Pakistan.

    If he wanted it, he got it.

    If he did not want it, and one claims he was forced to accept it, because of Congress’s intransigence, so what happens then? It proves Jinnah did not want a Partition, and just wanted Muslim rights within United India. So what happens even if that is accepted for the argument’s sake? Does it change anything?

    Pakistan is a done thing. There is no desire for reunification. Neither on the Pakistani side, much less on the Indian side. Indians and Pakistanis, we go our separate ways! We are both happy!

    In the end, one must recognize that Jinnah was not ready to accept one citizen one vote even in the backdrop of all safeguarded rights for minorities – of worship and preaching. India wanted to be a democracy based on a one citizen one vote principle. India wanted to ensure the rights of all religious minorities – as the Indian Constitution does even today, despite Partition.

    If Jinnah wanted more rights over and above all this, then his demands simply could not have been entertained by India and he should have known this. By pressing for such demands, he was in fact demanding a state which abided by his unjust demands and he got just such a state – Pakistan.

    Why should the Indians have accepted unjust demands which the Muslim League thought they were entitled to? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

    Even in Pakistan, the concept of “one citizen one vote” is known, so why was this concept not acceptable in united India?

  173. YLH

    I don’t know why Indians feel the sun sets in their arse.

    The reason why this is important is that if the issue was of sovereignty and political power-sharing for Muslims, the ideological Islamic argument falls flat on its face.

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

  174. Pankaj

    Jinnah was a lawyer and a eminent one at that

    So in order to strengthen his arguement Jinnah had to use ALL possible arguements ranging from Islamic ideological arguement and power sharing arguement.

    Jinnah had to convince Muslims, partition was the right thing

    But what I personally like is the Two Nation theory

    Hindus and Muslims are Two DIFFERNT NATIONS
    They neither inter marry or inter dine etc etc .

    There are many points in Two nation theory which are true.

  175. bciv

    Even in Pakistan, the concept of “one citizen one vote” is known, so why was this concept not acceptable in united India?

    the relevant version of the CMP was on the basis of “one citizen one vote”

  176. @Qasim Cheema

    You must continue, even though some bad people are hearting you. Most of all, keep justifing no communal until he cries. But I am not thinking of your points.

    I am only justifing you that Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was secular.
    I give the proof….
    with referncesss.
    British Empire want Pakistan and break Pakistan…
    what happened in 1971,December.
    Who was the enemy if Islam and Pakistan……
    tell me…..

    The tension, the pressure!

    Who was it? Please tell us.

    While you think of telling us, please justif no-communal one some more.

  177. bciv

    There are many points in Two nation theory which are true.

    which points, as expressed by MAJ, in his own words, are not true ?

  178. Kaalket

    YLH says .
    “the issue was of sovereignty and political power-sharing for Muslims”
    Why such exception and obligation for Muslims in a democarcy where one man one vote principle apply? Its specially galling when so called “Muslim” dont even belong to the land and have no roots in cultural, ideological or social behavior of Suncontinetal people. YLH, please tell what part of your name reflect the ancient identity of the land ?

  179. YLH


    Well said about the one man one vote.

    Unfortunately Indians imagine all sorts of things about the Cabinet Mission Plan …and for that matter Jinnah’s position… for example they forget that there was pact between Jinnah and Rajendra Prasad where Jinnah had agreed to give up separate electorates in 1934 (it is forgotten that Jinnah had only accepted the separate electorates as an interim measure and had stated several times that he … and they also forget that Muslim League was committed to complete independence and universal adult franchise from 1934 onwards.

    But perhaps the biggest confusion our friends from across the border create is with regards to the provisions of the cabinet mission plan. They claim two things in particular:

    Myth no.1 : Cabinet Mission Plan gave Muslims and Hindus parity. This is NOT true. Under cabinet mission plan Muslims got only 78 seats out of a house 300+.

    Myth no.2: Cabinet Mission Plan gave the right to secede after 10 years. Here again they are confusing what Muslim League’s terms of 5th 0r 6th of May with the Cabinet Mission’s statement of 16th May. The CMP omitted reference to secession and this was duly noted by Jinnah in his statement of 22nd May. Ofcourse League’s working committee said in its acceptance that it was implied but as A G Noorani wrote in his wonderful book “Jinnah and Tilak” that Jinnah as a good lawyer knew the difference between “reconsideration of terms” and “secession”.

    Muslim League’s terms on 5th May made confederation – not separation- the maximum demand … Cabinet Mission Plan’s position gave a three tiered federation not confederation…. Muslim League accepted Cabinet Mission Plan’s position. Classic Producer and consumer surplus negotiation from micro-economics 101.

    But people like the NJ Guptas keep asking for god knows what… just to satisfy their own little egos.

  180. YLH

    “Jinnah had to convince Muslims, partition was the right thing”

    Since Jinnah did not want a partition, he didn’t have to convince Muslims of it.

    It is Nehru, Gandhi and the Congress supporters who had to prove that partition was the right thing because there was no other choice (when they had themselves shot the other choice in the back) which is they had to invent a whole different history to justify their actions.

  181. Subcontinental

    YLH wrote: The reason why this is important is that if the issue was of sovereignty and political power-sharing for Muslims, the ideological Islamic argument falls flat on its face.

    Jinnah’s acceptance of the Cabinet Mission was a tactical ploy. He knew that it would not be acceptable to the Congress – a dominion where the center has only foreign policy, defence and communications, is such a loosely based confederation, that India would not have become a nation-state at all. In fact there was a provision to opt out, to secede after 10 years.

    Considering that Jinnah had in the mean time developed a well-known pattern that he never took any initiative or constructive posture towards any ideas for the whole nation, and only reacted negatively to the proposals already formulated by the Congress giving consideration only to Muslim interests while showing the middle finger to the interests of the nation as a whole, it was a foregone conclusion that even a rump of a nation-state that was being proposed by the CMP would not be feasible.

    Pakistan itself got a Constitution 9 years after Independence. In a United India, had it survived we would still be fighting over a constitution. Jinnah and his Leaguers were not known for their constructive engagement.

    Another reason Jinnah was okay with CMP was because he would have had another 10 years to hobnob with the Nawabs of the princely states, and would have got a corridor between West and East, and once he had it, he would have seceded.

    So whether it was simply posturing for an image of a responsible and cooperative statesman or as an intrigant for a postponed secession, Jinnah and his Muslim League were in favor of seceding anyway. He just was not happy with having no corridor between East and West, and having to accept a ‘moth-eaten’ Pakistan, so wanted more time at it using the cover of CMP.

    Jinnah was always in favor of Pakistan, but whether he wanted an Islamic Pakistan or not, one can’t say.

    In any case, the Pakistanis are now free to make a Pakistan of their choice, and if the mood of the country is any indication, it can’t be Islamic enough.

  182. Pankaj

    Wow YLH

    Jinnah was simply a shrewd lawyer.

    How nicely you have portrayed Jinnah as not wanting Partition and Nehru ,Gandhi , Patel as responsible for partition.

    Jinnah wanted something even worse than Partition for India .He wanted India to disintegrate into many pieces AFTER the supposed ” reconsideration” 10 years later , of the working of the federation.

    Jinnah spoke in many voices simply to confuse people .Because he KNEW that many Hindus wanted a compromise .So he laid down impossible conditions and tried to extract more than the just share of power

    Nehru and Patel saw through his game and rejected the cabinet mission plan

  183. YLH


    Your post and Pankaj’s post shows me that Indians actually haven’t read the cabinet mission plan negotiations or the plan itself.

    The so called impossible conditions did not exist after CMP was accepted … many people in the Congress agreed with Jinnah’s position…. and many of these people have been quoted by A G Noorani in his book “Jinnah and Tilak”.

    What Pakistan did vis a vis the constitution is irrelevant since the constituent assembly under the CMP was designed to work… So you are now inverting history on its head.

    The truth is that there is a little piece of paper – written by VP Menon – in which the exact boundaries after partition were already decided … by January 26 1946. Congress never wanted an agreement.

    Anyone reading the CMP (in comparison to Muslim League’s statement of terms) would know how far back Jinnah went from his stated position when accepting it and the Congress point of view … indeed it shows precisely the reverse of what you are suggesting. By then sabotaging the groupings issue… Congress was determined to destroy all basis of agreement by setting impossible conditions. By agreeing to a joint constituent assembly, a central legislature and no parity between Hindus and Muslims, Jinnah had virtually accepted the position of the Congress.

    Given that Congress’ objection ultimately came down to misinterpretting para 15 of the Cabinet Mission Plan shows that Congress either wanted partition or wanted to smash all dissent.

  184. amar

    Once a fish bites into a hook it does not and cannot let go. So it is also with the Jinnah worshippers. And also with worshippers of some west asiatic prophet. The fish begins to wriggle vehemently and even thinks it can pull the angle-holder into the water with him.

  185. Pankaj


    You have made very detailed research about the events of that period and hence you are positioning Jinnah as a person who didnt want Pakistan.

    In fact you are doing micro analysis

    An article here , a letter there and Jinnah has been packaged as totally pro united India

    But you are forgetting very basic and far bigger points

    The demand for Pakistan was first made even before 1940

    Pakistan as an IDEA had come into being

    The demand and clamour for Pakistan had reached a crescendo by 1946.

    Even Jinnah could not have prevented Pakistan.

    Patel told Congress men that DE FACTO Pakistan has come into existence in Muslim majority areas of un divided India

    So there was no point in trying to prevent partition.

    There was complete mistrust between the Congress and the Muslim league with each shooting down the others proposals

    Add to that the communal violence and we can say that since hearts and minds had already been partitioned there was absolutely no sense in
    an ARTIFICIAL and MAKE BELIEVE united India

  186. YLH

    Once again missing the point.

    A bargaining counter would not be a bargaining counter if Jinnah said “psst but I really don’t mean it”.

    What I’ve produced above shows that Jinnah scaled back upto 70 percent of his demands to accept cabinet mission plan.

    The record also shows that Congress accepted the plan but then sabotaged it under a totally different pretext. So where is the honesty.

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

  187. Pankaj

    Pakistan as an IDEA had taken a very firm and strong shape in the minds of the people

    Even if Jinnah scaled back his demands by as much as 70 % that YOU SAY and since I am not a historian I cannot any thing on this but the DAMAGE had been done

    Jinnah knew he was dying .So some body else would have picked up the baton of Pakistan

    Jinnah knew that he had done his job .The rest
    was just a question of SEMANTICS.

  188. YLH

    Again untrue… for reasons already mentioned. You are just going in circles now.

  189. Pankaj

    No I am not going in circles .

    You are just selling SNAKE oil by saying that Jinnah didnt want Pakistan but those evil Nehru and Patel THREW out all his fair proposals and left Jinnah with no choice.

    So you are basically saying that Jinnah was forced to ask for Pakistan.

    And what is this big deal of rolling back demands .

    Demands can be SCALED up any time.

    As Sub continental has written Jinnah wanted time
    so he could do maximum damage to India

  190. YLH

    Well I have just proved my statement with facts. You are merely making assertions which don’t quite follow except some divine knowledge you seem to have.

    Let us just say that I am not the sole proprietor of this snake-oil selling enterprise… indeed an entire academic movement in the west revolves around this idea… vis a vis partition… of which Ayesha Jalal is probably the youngest and least known member.

    And why stop there… prominent congressmen as well as people like MN Roy also tried selling this snake oil and did so successfully.

    One such seller of this snake oil is a leading writer for the Hindu … which I suppose is a leading Indian newspaper.

  191. Anoop

    I will quote what M.J.Akbar says about Jinnah and Cabinet Mission Plan.

    “The provisions of the Plan could have left the political map of India an utter horror story, enmeshed by potentially rebellious Princely States, and “Groupings” with their own executives and Constituent Assemblies, buttressed by the right to secede in 10 years. Jinnah might have been content with a “moth-eaten” Pakistan. Nehru would not accept a “moth-eaten” India. ”

    Jinnah wanted to experiment with a country, an experiment never been tried before in History.

    He was wrong in thinking Islam would hold 2 set of territories together which are separated from one another by thousands of kilometers. He was wrong to think minorities will never get their dues in India, a Sikh,who form 5% of the population in a country 80% Hindu, is the Prime Minister in India now. People voted for a Catholic Sonia and the Sardar Singh to occupy the ultimate seat.

    He thought wrongly that Urdu, which was not even native to Pakistan and Bangladesh should be the primary language, which indicates again how little he thought of or knew the significance of ethnicity and identity. His miscalculations ensured that Bangladesh would be born.

    M.J.Akbar add,”Nehru and Patel saved India from anarchy by isolating a wound that would have infected the whole of India if it had not been cauterized and sutured. For this they deserve our deepest gratitude. ”

    And,”The anarchy that is Pakistan today would have visited India six decades ago.”

    Nehru and Patel ensured India would not become a guinea pig at the hands of Jinnah and opted for stability. Pakistan opted for anarchy and that is what it is now.

    I for one, am glad Pakistan happened, it was inevitable. Then, it was Jinnah, later it could have been someone else. After 1971, when followers of Islam killed,raped and butchered other followers of Islam in a country full of them, Indian Muslims realized Jinnah actually did India a favour: the next Jinnah could have asked for a lot more and ensured Civil war, by the way Jinnah too threatened.

  192. YLH

    M J Akbar I am afraid is completely wrong because what Jinnah asked and what he accepted in the Cabinet Mission Plan are two different things.

    Can you point to the point where the right of secession is granted under the CMP. Why don’t you write to M J Akbar and ask him?

    To understand what I am trying to say please refer to my post addressed to bciv above.

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

  193. Pankaj


    Now we are TALKING

    It is true that there is an entire industry revolving around Partition .You are the latest entrant in this field.

    There are many eminent writers who have made researching about Partition ,a means to earn money and some 15 minutes of FAME

    The last Indian who tried this was Jaswant singh
    we all know about the controversy .

    So it is better to say that No body is responsible
    for partition . And it was just supposed to happen

    In any case undivided India was so poor and full of problems.

    And development is very hard work and takes time

    There is no magic wand

    So it is possible that dissatisfaction could have been generated on ” N ” Number of issues resulting in bitterness and acrimony

    The demand for partition and Pakistan was LATENT in the country .Because the population ratio of Hindus and Muslims was such that there would be inevitable competiton for power and resources

    Even if we assume for arguement sake, that NOBODY wanted Pakistan but The demand for pakistan could have been triggered at any point say in 10 years time

  194. Anoop


    Good to see that you have not contested when I said that Jinnah was wrong in thinking Islam alone would hold the 2 Territories together and the he ignored the importance of identity and ethnicity.

    East Pakistan and West Pakistan were the same country, weren’t they. Jinnah wanted a non-centralized country and look what happened. India, which adopted the Strong-Center type of government and is doing remarkably well.

    CMP would have created a bunch of states which would have even less to do with each other than East Pakistan and West Pakistan did. Nehru and Patel were right in guessing that such entities would prefer independence rather than unity.

    Jinnah partitioned Pakistan too, when he partitioned India. It was only a matter of time, sort of a ticking time bomb, if you will. Religion could not hold it together, Language divided it.

    India having 18 officially recognized languages and thousands of dialects and dozens of Religions living under one roof, was not like any other country. What was the basis of division with CMP? Religion, again.

    India was saved by Nehru and Patel.

  195. Samachar

    Resolution passed by the Council of the All-India Muslim League, 6 June 1946

    That notwithstanding the affront offered to Muslim sentiments by the choice of injudicious words in the preamble to the statement of the Cabinet Mission, the Muslim League, having regard to the grave issues involved, and prompted by its earnest desire for a peaceful solution, if possible, of the Indian constitutional problem, and inasmuch as the basis and the foundation of Pakistan are inherent in the Mission’s plan by virtue of the compulsory grouping of the six Muslim provinces in Sections B and C, is willing to co-operate with the constitution-making machinery proposed in the scheme outlined by the Mission, in the hope that it would ultimately result in the establishment of complete[ly] sovereign Pakistan, and in the consummation of the goal of independence for the major nations, Muslims and Hindus, and all the other people inhabiting the vast subcontinent.

    It is for these reasons that the Muslim League is accepting the scheme, and will join the constitution-making body, and it will keep in view the opportunity and right of secession of Provinces or groups from the Union, which have been provided in the Mission’s plan by implication. The ultimate attitude of the Muslim League will depend on the final outcome of the labours of the constitution-making body, and the final shape of the Constitutions which may emerge from the deliberations of the body jointly and separately in its three Sections.

    The Muslim League reserves the right to modify and revise the policy and attitude set forth in this resolution at any time during the progress of the deliberations of the constitution-making body, or the Constituent Assembly, or thereafter if the course of events so require, bearing in mind the fundamental principles and ideals herebefore adumbrated, to which the Muslim League is irrevocably committed.

  196. YLH

    Anoop mian,

    I didn’t correct you because I can’t correct every ignorant statement every self assured Indian with little knowledge and half baked ideas comes up with.

    There are two things here:

    1. Under the CMP Bengal was a separate group ie Group C.

    2. Jinnah as late as May 1947 accepted Sarat Bose’s plan for an independent Bengal state. It was Nehru who ruled out more than one Pakistan as being a balkanizing influence.

    So that is what you get for little knowledge …but thanks for giving me an opportunity for rubbing it in your face.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  197. YLH


    Read my post addressed to BCIV… I have already addressed the “implication” point.

    As usual you’ve failed to grasp the argument and proved my point yet again.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  198. YLH

    Just drive home my point further the demand of the League stated originally “reconsideration of terms after 10 years” and the “right to secede from the union”.

    The “right to secede from the union” was omitted at Congress’ insistence.

    League’s CWC resolution about implication of “reconsideration of terms after 10 years” being secession was at best a face saving and a bone to the committed nationalists… Jinnah’s 22nd May statement made a special note of the aforesaid omission… As a lawyer Jinnah understood full well the implication of this statement. Reconsideration of terms did not mean the right to termination (or secession) but rather an equivalent of the right of first refusal. Ofcourse I can see why Congress did not want to accept this…it did not sit well with the centralised all encompassing one party vision that Congress had (and which in a very real sense India was from 1947 to 1976).

    It would be a good idea for people to refer to a good book on “interpretation of statutes” or even the General Clauses Act which on the books in both India and Pakistan.

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

  199. Girish

    So the absence of a “right to secede” was a redline for the Congress and the Cabinet Mission accepted it as such and omitted the clause from the CMP. The Muslim League supposedly accepted the plan, but then went back on the “right to secede” clause in its resolution of June 6 by reserving the right to itself. The first blow to the CMP was thus this League Resolution. Claims about what Jinnah really knew or thought are speculative and totally immaterial. What is relevant for any party other than the League is exactly what is in the resolution duly adopted by its highest decision making body.

    And yet Nehru and his statement to the press more than a month later supposedly unravelled the CMP?

    The CMP was dead in the water from the outset. The League’s acceptance of the plan was a mere strategic ploy, nothing else.

  200. YLH

    That is the most nonsensical interpretation yet … I am surprised that people will go far to deny history.

    If League had not been serious it would have insisted on retaining the explicit “secession” language as it had done so.

    I am also a little surprised that self styled “balanced” Girish is now grappling with some sort of internal dilemma. Herein lies the rub, as Nehru would say, Congress accepted the CMP regardless of League’s June 6th resolution’s language.

    Instead of raising an objection on League’s suggestion vis a vis “implication”, the Congress misinterpretted the issue of grouping clause.

    In order to accept Girish’s pathetic attempt to distort history, Girish would have to show us where Congress objected to League’s suggestion about implication.

    If Congress didn’t then Congress accepted the CMP’s language as is and was satisfied that the said clause did not provide for secession.

    Therefore no matter how you spin it… you cannot justify Congress’ behavior by trying to spin it the way you are.

  201. YLH

    *as it had done so before.

  202. Anoop


    Dude, you are turning it into a competition. Certainly I am not competing. India survived without breaking up and has a secular constitution and laws and a very stable democracy, everything Jinnah wanted for Pakistan. Pakistan, well, you know…

    Jinnah is the same guy who once said,”Let me tell you that Muslim India will not rest content until we have established full, complete and sovereign Pakistan. And I repel with all the emphasis that I can command the arguments and the reasons and the way in which the Mission has mutilated the facts for no other purpose except to please and appease the Congress. ”

    As a lawyer he could have twisted language of the CMP and the situation to suit his purpose.

    The last thing the new Independent India wanted was uncertainty. If CMP was put in practice a number of situations could have arisen, by not accepting it, there was only one way India could go- Progress on the path set by its leaders.

    The founding fathers of India, that Jinnah disagreed with, and you seem think are lesser mortals than Jinnah, gave India a secular, just constitution in 3 years. They established 3 three organs of the state which are growing stronger by the day.

    Pakistan’s founding father(Pakistan was a singular effort) broke it apart before it was even created, stole its identity by compromising and fashioning his words to suit the audience. Jinnah didnt even think who would serve as the backup to him. India had a range of leaders who could have taken Nehru’s place.

    How many times Jinnah talks of Pakistan being a secular country similar to the speech he had made after partition? When you are demanding a country and basing it on being a country full of followers of a certain Religion, you should explicitly mention, a 100 times,nay a 1000, that you want it to be a Secular, democracy and erase mention to the said Religion.

    Jinnah didnt do that.

    As M.J.Akbar points out, Jinnah was secular-liberal most of his life, not his whole life.

    You dont look at the big picture and start calling everybody names.

    India got the foundation what its founding fathers and mothers sought for in a sound Constitution, just laws, strong Institutions.

    Pakistan has so far achieved not a single of its objectives that Jinnah thought was possible. You might blame the circumstances, but when creating a country you have to think and plan for every eventuality. Jinnah didnt. For one thing, who was his backup if something had happened to him soon after Partition, something that DID happen?

    The next bunch of guys having zero power succumbed to the Mullahs. Jinnah’s effort was wasted.

    Sadly, the only country which resembles Jinnah is not Pakistan but Bangladesh. But, it has followed India’s footsteps rather than Jinnah/Pakistan’s and hence, it is progressing.

  203. YLH

    More nonsense. I am not interested in responding to your masturbation about India shining and what not … because you are clueless. I have already addressed the uselessness of the so called Indian secularism and do not wish to revisit that nautanki as I am not a drama critic. However I will only comment on the part about CMP.

    You are going to quote what Jinnah said but you are not willing to accept that he accepted a legally binding arrangement and in order to do so scaled back almost entirely.

    I am not interested in convincing you of anything …if you wish to delude yourself about history and continue to point to Jinnah’s statements which have not been denied and which are the only reason we are having this debate, please do so.

    However when you and others like you grow up and decide to actually make an effort to read you’ll realise why people selling this “snake oil” as it were are tenured professors at respectable western universities including Harvard and Tufts and University of Chicago.

    The Congress was incapable of coming to an agreement with anyone who challenged their authority.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  204. Girish


    I have not styled myself as anything and this discussion is not about me. So please stick to the subject.

    I have not justified any of INC’s acts. In fact, I think neither party was happy with the CMP. They both interpreted it in ways that were aligned to their own positions and wanted out of it from very early on. Ispahani has written about Jinnah’s remorse about it the day after the League accepted the plan. His desire to get out of it at the earliest opportunity is crystal clear from the fact that after Nehru’s statement to the press (not an official resolution of the Congress CWC, mind you), it would have been very easy to state the League’s redlines publicly and put the ball in the Congress court about whether it was willing to go with the CMP as publicly released. But he didn’t do that.

    The main point I am making is that CMP was dead on arrival. It was an attempt to achieve the impossible – bringing together two parties that had gone so far apart in their positions that they could not have been brought together. Any attempt at bridging the gap would have been temporary at best. Jinnah was trying to get the Muslim majority provinces without division and keep Assam – a Muslim minority province – as a bonus . Congress was trying to keep everything for itself if possible, and if not, to ensure that only the Muslim majority areas in the Northwest and Bengal would secede. The participation in the CMP process was to achieve these objectives, nothing more and nothing less.

  205. YLH

    Also I suggest to Indians who are objecting to this idea should pick up a book called “Jinnah and Tilak” by A G Noorani about Cabinet Mission Plan negotiations. And if you don’t want to read a Muslim , perhaps H M Seervai’s classic “Constitution of India” will suffice as it has an entire prologue on partition and he concludes exactly the same.

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

  206. Pankaj


    Why dont you get it ? Do you KNOW Anything about REAL world and REAL Life

    The plan of Muslim is as clear as daylight

    The Muslim league was SURE that IDEA of Pakistan had been firmly planted in the hearts and minds of its supporters.

    The people were ready.

    It was a matter of timing .

    Since the league had to leave India why NOT damage it to maximum and go.

    So just keep on “talking ” for 10 years and then leave causing more mayhem and damage.

  207. YLH


    It was not dead on arrival. You should read the actual transcripts and you’ll see a very different point of view.

    There is nothing to substantiate your point of view.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  208. amar

    ylh has been arguing his position “that Gandhi, Nehru and hindus are at fault and Jinnah is the brilliant, noble, superior-intelligent star above everything and everyone” since long and with everyone. If you don’t agree with him then you get mouthfuls of abusives, very filthy and obscene at times.

    And no one accuses him of being a repetitive bore. But I get those accusations hurled at me although I argue far more variegatedly and decently. There are even calls to boycott me.

  209. Pankaj

    The truth is Jinaah and Muslim league were too CLEVER BY HALF.

    They were clearly out witted by Nehru and PATEL

    Jinnah ‘s eyes were on Assam ,Junagadh, Hyderabad and of course Kashmir

    But a hurried partition meant a moth eaten Pakistan because bengal and Punjab were divided.

    So in order to gain time and win over the above mentioned areas Muslim league crafted a plan of flooding Muslims from Bengal And Punjab into Kashmir and North east India.

    In 10 years time Muslim league would have cleverly spread in ASSAM and North east And would have easily taken over Kashmir by engineering revolt against Hindu king

    pakistanis are realising NOW that they were out witted because a hurried partition means that got
    a moth eaten Pakistan

  210. YLH

    Chalo…if that makes you sleep more peacefully… you may believe this myth as well.

  211. Anoop


    The world is wrong about Jinnah, only you are correct. There, I said it.

    You said,”A nation is its laws ultimately.”

    You also say,”What is definite, however, is that Indian jurists and lawyers are certainly far superior as a whole when it comes to expounding law.”

    Now, you are singing a different tune. If a Nation’s law is Secular even the nation deserves to be called so by your belief. You deep down inside know that India is the dream that Jinnah had for Pakistan.

    Right-wingers will probably win the elections next time in the US and they hold considerable power in UK. The Right-Wingers even gained a lot of power in Europe. You dont dare calling them non-Secular. They are not India.

    I never said India is Shining. I live here, came from a lower-middle class background and worked my way up. You are generalizing way too much with the intention to offend me.

    All I talk about is the Constitution, our laws and democracy.

    “You are going to quote what Jinnah said but you are not willing to accept that he accepted a legally binding arrangement and in order to do so scaled back almost entirely.”

    –> What I am saying is India did not need the dangerous uncertainty that CMP would have brought. When you look back India followed the right path.

    The political, economic, sociological and linguistic uncertainty that Jinnah brought to Pakistan is responsible for the state that it is in now and for its eventual breakup which created further problems in Pakistani society which made it more extremist.

    I accept that our founding fathers weren’t perfect, they had flaws and committed mistakes, but you are not willing to consider the possibility that Jinnah was wrong is some aspects.

    In my view the only difference between you and me is of perception: I know that shit stinks, you eat yours like halwa.

  212. Pankaj


    SO far it is not clear what you have made out of Jinnah . Please express your findings of Jinnah

    1.Whether he wanted Pakistan or not

    2 If he was only bluffing to extract the maximum from Congress Party then why didnt he back out at the last minute

  213. Girish

    OK. Will look at the transcripts again. I have just obtained a copy of “Transfer of Power in India” by V.P.Menon as well.

  214. YLH

    What world are you talking about? Every Serious academic in America, West in general and many in India agree with me…

    So who the hell gave you the right to speak for the world…

    Do you mean ignorant fools like you alone populate the world?
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  215. Pankaj


    If you say again and again that Jinnah didnt want Pakistan then why does Pakistan has to be always enimical to India

    It is a classic case of double speak

  216. YLH

    Pankaj mian…

    Like you said Pakistan was already an idea…the issue was whether such a Pakistan would remain in a united India under a top down federal constitution which provided the requisite safeguards for all minorities. Jinnah made a concerted effort to make it possible.

  217. Pankaj


    Again and again you prove that you DON T LIVE in the real world.

    The atmosphere was so vitiated in 1946 -47 and add to it violence and mistrust and YOU SAY we should believe a PIECE of PAPER called CMP

    Academics all over the world go by just documentary evidence like letters, articles and worthless agreements called CMP

    They dont go by the what the people thought or said at that time or the pulse of the people

    But smart people like Patel and Nehru live in the real world

  218. YLH

    Well Pakistan should not be opposed to India … Indeed the only way Pakistan can fulfill its economic and political advantage of being a separate state if it is on friendly terms and in a regional military alliance with India … And when there is trade between India and Pakistan.

    Pakistan’s future lies in being a trade hub and route for energy for India and China.

  219. YLH

    There was no violence in May 1946 …so what are you talking about.

  220. no-communal

    I think this article aims to convey the message that Jinnah didn’t want Pakistan that it is today. That is, he didn’t want an Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What he wanted is probably similar to Bangladesh in the last two years. It’s true that Bangladesh is able to do this because it is slowly coming out of its islamic ideological baggage and sort of ‘re-integrating’ with India by trade and commerce (much to the consternation of some sections of Pakistan). Jinnah did want a friendly India. I believe that is the goal of articles like these. On these points we all may agree and move on.

    BTW, I wanted to ask, has anybody seen Cheema Sb. today, I mean at any corner of the Tea House? I was having an important discussion with him yesterday…

  221. no-communal

    By the time I am done writing someone else (YLH in this case) has already said it.

  222. Pankaj


    The constitution with the requisite safe gaurds and a proper power sharing agreement that you are saying are very good things BUT
    ALL that has to be seen in the back drop of the period from 1940 45

    1 First a huge Pakistan agitation takes place,
    2 riots happen
    3 British Govt is asked for support and then you hold a “secession after 10 years” gun to the head
    and say ” Make a constitution as I want ” or else

    Are you serious that ANY GOD Damn constitution would have worked what had transpired in the period 1940 to 46

    Sorry sir but in such a vitiated atmosphere It was perfect that Jinnah was told to take Pakistan and leave

  223. Anoop


    Dude, the world makes a Gandhi-The movie, they dont consider Jinnah is worth the trouble. In Bangladesh, they celebrate Shiekh Mujibur Rehman more than Jinnah.

    Nehru and Gandhi are icons who stood for Secularism and tolerance which ultimately reflected in its Constitution. Jinnah who compromised to achieve his ambition is no where in comparison.

    I agree with you on most points- Jinnah is secular and smart,was a nationalist. But, Pakistan was the biggest mistake of his life. You mention in one of your articles that Jinnah repeatedly says after partition what Pakistan is supposed to be- Secular, Democratic,etc. But, I emphasize the word After.

    He used Islam to achieve his means, even though he might not belong to the right. That set off a sequence of events which for the most part are tragic in nature.

    He used Islam to achieve his goals, a lot of scholars agree. Nehru and Gandhi are icons who inspired the values that India’s constitution and laws are based on, there is a overwhelming recognition. No scholar speculates the ifs and buts of what would have happened if CMP was put in practice. We can only guess by taking the examples of East and West Pakistan. Once you draw borders on Earth and on people’s hearts its very hard to undo.

    All scholars agree that Nehru wanted a Secular-Democracy. He got it. Nehru made sure that India’s minorities are not sidelined.

    All scholars agree that Jinnah inspite of wanting the same things couldn’t achieve it.

    Your words reflect a sense of anger and frustration, which leads you insult and name call in addition to the overwhelming urge to correct everyone to follow your view. You are not that different to Jinnah.

    He never believed Nehru, Gandhi and Patel would ever succeed in creating a secular,democratic India out of the mess that it was, as it was a divided nation in many ways.

    No wonder on his death bed he allegedly told the people around him that Pakistan was his biggest mistake. Even if he said it, it is the truth. The present situation only confirms it.

  224. YLH

    Again no agitation took place till then so I am not sure what you are talking about.

    As for secession I’ve proved above that the CMP did not provide for secession.

  225. YLH

    The world makes Gandhi the movie”

    For which Government of India paid 10 million pounds …but let us not get into inconvenient details.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  226. YLH

    I didn’t know Gandhi was a symbol of secularism frankly.

    As for non-violence … Yes… Remember the world believes there is a god too… It is G-delusion.

    I like the post-1947 Nehru … I don’t have a problem with appreciating his good work. It does not however whitewash his responsibility in the CMP fiasco…though he was merely a scapegoat. It was Gandhi and Patel pulling his strings.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  227. Anoop

    I know your hate of that movie. I also understand that you are frustrated that the Film Community chose Gandhi rather than Jinnah.

    Obama says he is inspired by Gandhi, even Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

    I am hoping nobody paid these gentlemen to worship him and idolize him.

    Jinnah inspires only the local Mullah in Pakistan.

  228. YLH

    “Jinnah is no where in comparison”

    I frankly don’t care for popularity contests … Jinnah was in my view a much finer leader than Nehru and Gandhi. I am not concerned about what others think…

    The debate here is an academic one and most academics agree with the point of view I have put here.

  229. YLH

    Yawn. Anoop mian…not even the local Mullah … And your point is?

  230. Anoop


    I believe CMP would have fragmented India and destroyed it. You believe the opposite.

    We are venturing into an area of ifs and buts.

    My defence is that if East Pakistan and West Pakistan can be seen to break away, the different states that CMP would have created would have done the same.

    You say, the states under CMP had no right to succeed. I say, even East Pakistan didnt have any right to succeed, but succeed it did.

    Get my point?

  231. YLH

    Jinnah inspires Yasser Latif Hamdani… All the positions I take, against blasphemy law,
    against discrimination against minorities, for women’s rights are inspired by Jinnah not Gandhi or Nehru.

    I don’t care much for some president or some reverend …

    I know that I don’t cross a red light, give way to ambulance, pay my taxes and conduct myself with honesty and integrity because of the principle “WWJD” ; what would Jinnah do.

    So that is all that matters to me. You can have your Mahatmas and Pandits… I don’t care for action figures and fairy tales.

  232. YLH


    Ok. Now I get it. I am talking to someone who doesn’t even know the English language.

  233. Pankaj


    Your writings seem to convey a very sad impression


    You can write tomes about Jinnah’s innocence and greatness and how he was pushed away by the evil Troika of Nehru Gandhi and Patel.

    Your opinion is just that AN OPINION not FACT

    You are just another anti Indian Pakistani who can ONLY see the extremely sorry state of affairs of his country BUT can do nothing about it

  234. YLH


    And your point is?

  235. Anoop


    “I am not concerned about what others think…”

    Of course you do. The world thinks well of Gandhi and Nehru, most dont know who Jinnah is. You dislike them or atleast dont think they are as good as Jinnah was.

    If you didnt care what people think, you would not defend Jinnah and his “vision” so much in much of your articles nor bash or abuse everyone who tried to argue. Your comments smack of self-righteousness, something you have picked from Jinnah.

    Jinnah failed, Nehru and Gandhi succeeded.

    They did it by championing Secularism, Democracy,non-violence and tolerance. Jinnah was of the opinion non-violence would not succeed. Meaning Violence was the way out.

    You claim Gandhi is not a secular person. You are right. He is not. Gandhi spoke against as well as for Religion and certain social practices. He was not perfect, nor were his actions, but his philosophy and ideals are world renowned.

    Nehru on the other hand never minced his words. No wonder he was successful in creating a secular-democracy and a great constitution.

    The greatest thing Nehru gave India was certainty.

  236. Pankaj


    We in India believe Jinnah perfect hypocrite

    His hypocrisy is evident till his August 11 speech and THEN his supporting the Kashmir war in the name of ISLAM

    If he is your inspiration you too are a HYPOCRITE .

  237. YLH

    Ok. Don’t you have anything better to do then waste your time on a lowly website run by a hypocrite and on an article about a hypocrite who you claim is in any event insignificant?

    Man you Indians are a hoot…

  238. Pankaj


    let us assume for a moment that jinnah gets the perfect constitution that he had wanted and on 15 August 1947 India is an undivided country

    India’s constitutuion took three years in the making .How long would jinnah’s perfect constitution would have taken


    do you think life is all honey and roses

    The problems would have just begun and today YLH and Pankaj would be out there with GUNS IN THEIR HANDS.

    Hope you get the idea.

  239. amar

    to pankaj

    ylh is like a fish that has bitten on a hook with a worm on it.

    you can’t argue with that man.

    it is hopeless and shows why it is also hopeless for Pakistan.
    And pakistani will try(?) to get out of this hopelessness by the only way they know of, namely – terror, violence, emotions, tears, conspiracy theories, more fanaticism in this arabic religion, bloodshed encouragement (e.g. in Kashmir etc.), creating muslim “martyrs”, hatred against hunood, yahood and amrika and so on.

    We can see it coming.

  240. Anoop

    Psychology says that when a person starts believing in something very much, he only adds to that feeling and refuses to accept other’s point of view. This goes for most Right-Wingers and you.

    You pick and choose Jinnah’s actions and calm yourself that you are right.

    I never called Gandhi Mahatma. I take a balance view of him and Nehru. I despise Nehru’s economic view and Gandhi’s one-for-all-fixes.

    You on the other hand choose to ignore that what Jinnah asked for is directly in contrast to what you say he believed in. You dont recognize the mistakes he committed.

    I have an interest in History but what concerns me most is present and specially the future.

    India, with all its problems, is stable, secular, strong and most importantly growing like never before. Pakistan, is consuming itself.

    India’s foundation is strong and it’ll continue to progress.

    That is all I care about.

    Rubbing that fact into Pakistanis is an added pleasure. I suggest for you to stay in the past and make confine your narrative to History and Jinnah, your sweet spot where nothing can go wrong.

  241. Anoop

    Going to sleep. Goodnight. I want to bow out of this conversation.

  242. Tilsim

    “it is hopeless and shows why it is also hopeless for Pakistan”

    The only ones who are hopeless are you and those Indians like you spewing nonsense and hate.

  243. no-communal


    I for one support your sticking with Jinnah. I myself will stick with Gandhi and Nehru. To each his own. I don’t see why we Indians have to come en masse and demolish a single Pakistani who has written an article.

  244. YLH

    Thank you non-communal.

    I don’t understand this attitude. it seems that your countrymen have some sort of deep seated inferiority complex towards me.

    Anoop mian,

    I don’t have time for your nonsense frankly. I wrote an article for my countrymen and not you.

    However Jinnah did not oppose non-violence, he opposed a certain kind of civil disobedience during the Khilafat movement. Jinnah’s alternative was constitutional means which were by definition more non-violent.

  245. YLH

    Thanks Tilsim. What they want is that I should stop writing because what I write threatens their narrowmindedness.

    When I ask them why they don’t first try and stop A G Noorani for writing the same thing in India, they don’t have an answer.

  246. Kaalket

    When historical fog clears , MAJ will be considred one of the finest sons of Mother India . Barring few ,people of both Countries are and must be thankful to him. He was not perfect but achieved a lot and did great favor to humanity at large. The Indian who curse him dont realize that rise of civilizational India would have been extremely slow and bloody if there was no MAJ . Eventually , in future History will do justice to him. let the dead man rest in peace.

  247. Subcontinental

    YLH wrote: Pakistan’s future lies in being a trade hub and route for energy for India and China.

    China does not need Pakistan as an energy hub. Which parts would Pakistan be connecting – Iran and China? Well Iran already has a Oil and Gas Pipelines coming up from Iran through Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Besides it is difficult to transport Gas & Oil through Gilgit-Baltistan because of the mountainous region and cold in winter. Besides Pakistan is far too politically instable.

    Pakistan can only act as an energy corridor for India, but India is now building an under-sea Gas pipeline from Oman to Gujarat, which will bring to India gas from Qatar and Iran from the Pars Gasfields.

    Sure Pakistan can act as a trade corridor between India and Central Asia, but I think India would rather go through Iran, as there is zero trust in India for Pakistan. Pakistan brings in politics and ideology into everything. Nobody in India has the patience to deal with Pakistani shenanigans.

    Pakistan would have to find a different route to prosperity. But then, Pakistan already has one!

  248. Girish

    The main difference between a newspaper article and a blog post is that the latter allows for a discussion. I can understand that there is no place for hate speech or some of the repeated monologues that some participants bring in. But what exactly is the problem with a discussion? And how does the nationality of the commentator come into the picture – I am pretty sure a good proportion of those with Indian names here might trace origins to India, but don’t live there and may not even be citizens of the country. Attack the idea by all means, but how exactly do you advance your argument by attacking the person?

    Regarding Jinnah and his wanting Pakistan – it is by no means a settled question. Ayesha Jalal and some others have questioned conventional wisdom about whether Jinnah’s maximalist demand for Pakistan was a real demand or a mere bargaining ploy. But this revision of history is not based largely on the emergence of new facts (e.g. previously undiscovered or inaccessible documents) but on reinterpretation of existing facts. This is a more tenuous argument – not illegitimate by any means, but its acceptance depends on accepting those subjective interpretations.

    In general, a significant part of the argument on all sides of the debate is based on interpretations of facts, sometimes pure conjecture, due to the significant gaps in facts. This is not unusual in the field of history even though many of us with a more scientific/analytical training might find this kind of “research” troubling. Hence the value placed on objectivity – on basing conclusions on facts to the extent possible. On qualifying claims based on unverifiable facts or on conjecture as such. On drawing from a variety of sources reflecting different parts of the political spectrum. On not selectively choosing facts that are convenient and discarding others that are not convenient. Unfortunately, much of the historiography around partition lacks even this minimal degree of rigor.

  249. Bade Miyan

    “Unfortunately, much of the historiography around partition lacks even this minimal degree of rigor.”

    That’s because, in spite of the romantic notions of some “scholars” here, the best minds of west are not studying why Jinnah or Nehru did this or that. Back home, there is even less enthusiasm.

  250. YLH


    You are perhaps unaware of Western China’s energy needs and Gwadar route.

    Anyway I don’t have time to play strategy strategy on a blog.

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

  251. pankaj


    From all your posts and that of your compatriots ,it looks like WE bad Indians have thrown out the GOOD and NICE Pakistani.

    It looks as if WE wanted Partition.

    So now you can start blaming India for giving BIRTH to Pakistan.

    Anyway you guys the whole world EXCEPT yourselves for ALL your problems and failures.

  252. pankaj


    Time is the best judge of men and women
    Being young , You and We Indians are going to live for a long time .

    Lets us wait and watch if Pakistan can really become the country of your and Jinnah’s dreams

    But in order to do so you have to do an enormous amount of work and begin with an honest soul searching

    Time will tell

  253. Samachar

    Didn’t you know – the Congress also only had a bargaining position?

  254. YLH

    That is a stupid comment samachar, even for an average intellect like you.

  255. Subcontinental

    YLH wrote: You are perhaps unaware of Western China’s energy needs and Gwadar route.

    Of course I’m aware.

    The Iran-Turkmenistan-Kazakhstan-Xinjiang pipelines would be supplying all the Oil & Gas, Western China would require.

    Gwadar could be a good naval base for China, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, but for that Pakistan would need American permission, and Americans aren’t going to give that any time soon.

    The trade corridor between Gwadar and manufacturing factories of China would be quite long and unsafe, and the Chinese would rather prefer to use Myanmar and Bangladesh for transportation. The transit time would be much shorter that way.

    Energy hub and transit routes through Pakistan for China is and remains a lot of snake oil. Pakistan has waited 63 years already, sitting on “geo-strategic location” and will wait another 63 years waiting for somebody to come and buy this hollow proposition.

    Once the Americans leave Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to look for something other than the “rent and sit back” model, or the “help otherwise Jihadi takes over” model for economy.

  256. YLH

    Like I said… I don’t have time to play strategy strategy… all I can say is that you are not familiar with the latest developments vis a vis Gwadar and Western China.

  257. Subcontinental

    You mean like building of some railroad between Gwadar and Xinjiang? 🙂

    And turning over Gwadar Port to be managed by the Chinese again? 🙂

    Well my Baloch brothers have been telling me, there are many slips between the cups and the lips!

  258. YLH

    Your raggle taggle baloch brothers are nothing to write home about.

  259. Time is the best judge of men and women
    Being young , You and We Indians are going to live for a long time .

  260. Yaar ab humay sab dushmaniaan choor kar Pakistan kay liay achi soch apnani chahiye or Allah Pakistan ki hifazat farmai…

  261. Friend of PTH

    YLH writes:
    “”Ahrari Fifth Columnist Moin Ansari is from a breed of self appointed Pakistani McCarthyites who abuse and attack anyone who tries to point out some facts about the creation of Pakistan.””

    Editors take note of this article and Publish It In PTH:-


  262. Pingback: Speech of Abul Kalam Azad about separation of Indo-Pak. - Page 3