Re: History of Sindh
I have a feeling that creation of Pakistan was a conspiracy (or foolishness) by the Muslims of minority Muslim provinces specially people from UP, Delhi and CP. Till 1946 the majority of the people of present Pakistan were not in favor of Muslim League. We know about the Unionist Party in Punjab,(Muslim League lost badly in 1937) Balochistan and other provinces were against it. Only East Bengal was overwhelm ingly supporting Pakistan - and their was the greatest share of votes for Pakistan and Muslim League. And we know that the relations between Qaid e Azam and Liaqaut Ali were not good (He called him among (khotay sikkay).
Re: History of Sindh
In Sindh, their leadership has always been negative - since the day one up to the rising of Altaf Hussain. The riots of 1972 was nothing but a show of chauvinism (a baseless one) - when a bill for the protection of the language of people of the land was passed in the assembly of Sindh.
Re: History of Sindh
I have a feeling that creation of Pakistan was a conspiracy (or foolishness) by the Muslims of minority Muslim provinces specially people from UP, Delhi and CP. Till 1946 the majority of the people of present Pakistan were not in favor of Muslim League. We know about the Unionist Party in Punjab,(Muslim League lost badly in 1937) Balochistan and other provinces were against it. Only East Bengal was overwhelm ingly supporting Pakistan - and their was the greatest share of votes for Pakistan and Muslim League. And we know that the relations between Qaid e Azam and Liaqaut Ali were not good (He called him among (khotay sikkay).
Do you think all demands that muslims through Muslim league made were achievable in Hindu majority India?
Re: History of Sindh
Muslims was itself a negative party as in a majority rule they could never govern the country as they had been doing before the arrival of the Britain, they took narrow minded approach of dividing the country and imposing Pakistan on the people who never wanted it in the first place.
Re: History of Sindh
Muslims was itself a negative party as in a majority rule they could never govern the country as they had been doing before the arrival of the Britain, they took narrow minded approach of dividing the country and imposing Pakistan on the people who never wanted it in the first place.
But Muslims of Punjab, Sindh and WB overwhelmingly voted for league except NWFP. This shows muslims were in favour of partion or am I not getting the drift?
Re: History of Sindh
No they did not vote overwhelmingly - muslim league won only 40% seats of the present day Pakistan - it means the majority of the people of Pakistan were not in favour of making of Pakistan.
ML won only 113 out of 285 seats.
Pakistan came into being only because of votes of Bengal and minority provinces.
Re: History of Sindh
Among the people who came to Sindh after migration - at least 10% of the people coming from UP, Bihar and CP were born rioters and these same people created a lot of violence in Sindh over the last 70 years and these same type of people are in MQM.
Re: History of Sindh
Muslims was itself a negative party as in a majority rule they could never govern the country as they had been doing before the arrival of the Britain, they took narrow minded approach of dividing the country and imposing Pakistan on the people who never wanted it in the first place.
It is just your anti-Muslim bias showing. What you posted above is mere opinion.
History tells that Muslims were overwhelmingly in support of a single country but they were scared away by the Hindutva followers in Congress.
Even in minority provinces, which were the heart of Muslim League support, majority of Muslims started supporting the concept of a separate country very late. It started after 1937 elections. It was those elections which gave Muslims a glimpse of what to expect under the Hindutva rule.
And looking at the condition of Muslims in Bharat today, they were not totally mistaken.
I will answer the next argument coming from Muslim-haters. Muslims would have been much better if they were united. They would have constituted a healthy minority of about 30% in a single Bharat Mata.
This argument is a farce. Most Muslim majority places were lagging economically from the rest of the British Raj. Be it Muslim-majority East Bengal vs Hindu-majority West Bengal. NWFP, Balochistan, Sindh, or Kashmir.
And this is when the place was under the BRITISH rule. Things could have been far worse in Muslim-majority areas under Hindutva leaders of Hindu-majority Bharat.
Whether the Muslim population be 30% or 40%, it would still have been an economically-deprived minority.
Re: History of Sindh
I have a feeling that creation of Pakistan was a conspiracy (or foolishness) by the Muslims of minority Muslim provinces
Do you even understand what the word 'conspiracy' signifies?
Here is a quick search: "**a secret plan **by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
A SECRET PLAN, you ##.
So who was making those secret plan? The struggle of Muslim league was ALL IN OPEN. Muslims of minority provinces did not secretly go in Punjab, Sindh, or anywhere, and secretly vote for Muslim league. They were convinced and voted for Pakistan out of their own accord.
SECRET PLAN by Muslims of MINORITY provinces! Do you know that Muslim League was created in Dhaka East Bengal, a MUSLIM MAJORITY area?
Re: History of Sindh
Muslims of India did not listen to Moulana A K Azad and migrated to a country where they were not supposed to be. They weakened their brothers who were left behind. They are now suffering due to this dilemma. But there are other causes as well such low literacy rates and large families.
Re: History of Sindh
Mostar is definitely Tarek Fatah's agent. I am warning you guys
Re: History of Sindh
yes i admit and i get a fat cat salary! happy.
Re: History of Sindh
You are seeing wrong election. Please check election results of 1946. Muslims of subcontinent overwhelmingly voted for League.
The entire migration was spearheaded by UP, Bihar and Bombay. and the logic that grandson of a rioter will be rioter now is little too much for me.
Question: So is the communal problem solved in Pakistan? Just a curious question?
Muslims in India will remain where they are because they chose to be. I am born jatt Sikh. We were involved in worst street gangasterism, then terrorism in the decade of 80s. It took us just another decade to bounce back and get into mainstream, our people became PM, COAS etc. Muslim due to their own reasons will never be able to reach this. Except muslim minority, every other minority is doing good, be it Jains, Parsis or Sikhs 
Re: History of Sindh
Although I gave data from the 1946 elections but gave the link for the 1937 elections for comparison.
Re: History of Sindh
Sindh would have flourished as an independent state allied with India. Instead it became part of the failed experiment i.e. dysfunctional country Pakistan despite the fact that neither the average Sindhi nor Sindhi intelligentsia shared any enthusiasm for Pakistan. Even the legislators in colonial Sindh Assembly where a bill endorsing Pakistan was passed were mostly feudal lords. Wary of liberal leanings of Nehru, they made common cause with UP gentry, Bengali nawabs and Punjabi intellectuals behind the Pakistan movement only because they were apprehensive of losing their vast land holdings under impending land reforms in India.
The person who introduced that bill, however, didn't hail from feudal background but not long after Pakistan came into being even he became completely disillusioned with Pakistan after witnessing the repression of Sindhi nation, exodus of Sindhi Hindus and the demographic disaster for Sindh that were all unleashed by the creation of Pakistan. Yet when he spoke against Punjabi and mohajir imperialism in Pakistan, calling for independence of Sindh, he soon became a persona non grata for Pakistanis. Meanwhile the predatory Pakistani establishment co-opted the feudal lords to help maintain Pakistani stranglehold over Sindh and so continues the post-1947 horror story of Sindh.
Also Sindhi Hindus comprised a peaceful, constructive minority in Sindh. They posed no problem whatsoever for other Sindhis. On the contrary, Sindhi Hindus made enormous contributions for the cultural, economic and pedagogical enrichment of Sindh just as Sindhis like Aansoo Kohli and Deepwak Perwani continue to do so today in their own right in spite of the obstacles they face in the apartheid state of Pakistan. Sindh would have been infinitely better off if Pakistan was not created so that instead of millions of MQM-wallahs and equally toxic jamaatis and mullahs there were actually more Sindhi Hindus in Sindh.
Re: History of Sindh
Sindh would have flourished as an independent state allied with India. Instead it became part of the failed experiment i.e. dysfunctional country Pakistan despite the fact that neither the average Sindhi nor Sindhi intelligentsia shared any enthusiasm for Pakistan. Even the legislators in colonial Sindh Assembly where a bill endorsing Pakistan was passed were mostly feudal lords. Wary of liberal leanings of Nehru, they made common cause with UP gentry, Bengali nawabs and Punjabi intellectuals behind the Pakistan movement only because they were apprehensive of losing their vast land holdings under impending land reforms in India.
The person who introduced that bill, however, didn't hail from feudal background but not long after Pakistan came into being even he became completely disillusioned with Pakistan after witnessing the repression of Sindhi nation, exodus of Sindhi Hindus and the demographic disaster for Sindh that were all unleashed by the creation of Pakistan. Yet when he spoke against Punjabi and mohajir imperialism in Pakistan, calling for independence of Sindh, he soon became a persona non grata for Pakistanis. Meanwhile the predatory Pakistani establishment co-opted the feudal lords to help maintain Pakistani stranglehold over Sindh and so continues the post-1947 horror story of Sindh.
Also Sindhi Hindus comprised a peaceful, constructive minority in Sindh. They posed no problem whatsoever for other Sindhis. On the contrary, Sindhi Hindus made enormous contributions for the cultural, economic and pedagogical enrichment of Sindh just as Sindhis like Aansoo Kohli and Deepwak Perwani continue to do so today in their own right in spite of the obstacles they face in the apartheid state of Pakistan. Sindh would have been infinitely better off if Pakistan was not created so that instead of millions of MQM-wallahs and equally toxic jamaatis and mullahs there were actually more Sindhi Hindus in Sindh.
Its a post full of sweeping statements. One can't be that much sure for the matters which never happened.
Though Sindhi Hindus were cream of the society and there is no doubt that they did contributed a lot and developed areas they lived in, but Sindhi Muslims were not rich (except few families). Their views towards issues like female education were not different than overall Muslim society. Hindus were forward looking, they owned properties, educated their females, but this was not prevalent in Sindhi Muslims.
As they say, there are no free lunches, Sindhi Muslims had to struggle, even if Sindh became part of India. They might have been in same position as are Indian Muslims today (though the situation is not better even Pakistan considering the planted and corrupt politicians).
Re: History of Sindh
Sindhi Hindus are doing very well - even in Luckhnow!
One of the most shameful slogans I still remember from my childhood memories from 1972 Language riots was "sindhi zuban kameno ka nishan - urdu zuban shareefo ka nishan"!
Re: History of Sindh
Sindhi Hindus are doing very well - even in Luckhnow!
One of the most shameful slogans I still remember from my childhood memories from 1972 Language riots was "sindhi zuban kameno ka nishan - urdu zuban shareefo ka nishan"!
I know there are haters in all communities who have sowed seeds of discrimination among communities. People like Raees Amrohi used language complex very badly (with Urdu ka janaza hai dhoom se nikle type slogans), but at the end all such slogans lead to a new commitment with mother tongue by Sindhi community. Interestingly Raees Amrohi's brother Jaun Elia wrote very balanced editorials in Suspense digest during that period and tried to bridge the gap between two groups. Apart from Jaun Elia, people like Asif Farrukhi, Fahmida Riaz have done a lot to bridge up the gaps. Language riots are now part of history. Both communities have moved on and now language issue is not a burning one as it used to be in 1970s.
Re: History of Sindh
Bangladesh is more resource-constrained than Sindh with a much higher population and it suffered more than two decades of massive exploitation under Pakistani rule as well. Yet after the liberation of Bangladesh, even Bangladesh is doing quite well as an independent country. Yes it’s not quite Brazil. Yes not everyone there is living the high life. Yes people struggle there too, like people do everywhere. But in terms of social cohesion, economic growth and future prospects, Bangladesh is way ahead of Pakistan. Bangladeshis don’t feel any buyer’s remorse for getting freedom from Pakistan; they are very happy with an independent country of their own. When even Bangladesh can flourish, I don’t think there is any reason to assume that an independent nation state of Sindh free from extractive Pakistani rule could not have done the same.
True the prosperity of Sindhi Hindus was due to their emphasis on education and female empowerment. Sindhi Hindus were not oppressing other Sindhis or preventing others from availing the same opportunities they did. Therefore the artificial country of Pakistan was not needed to divide Sindhis or to save them from some phantom non-existent Hindu oppression. There were other well-off communities like Gujarati Ismaelis and Parsis in Sindh. And even the Hindu Sindhi middle class had begun to emerge only a few decades before 1947 so eventually other Sindhis would have caught on as well. We see, for example, that modern education isn’t a taboo in Sindh anymore. Attitudes evolve all the time.
If a separate state was off the table, and there was a choice only between Pakistan and India, even then Sindh would still have been better off without Pakistan. For starters, the fragmentation of Sindhi nation would not have happened so that Sindhi Hindus would still be living in their Sindh dharti. Moreover, the oppressive feudal class would have quickly lost their land and consequently their power in Sindh due to comprehensive land reforms in India. However Sindh may still have been overwhelmed by a steady stream of people from other parts of the subcontinent when there is only so much population any land can support. Australia, for instance, is an entire continent but has less than half the population of Sindh in 2016.