[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
]
Rajput ..dont be evasive be a man & if you are a Rajput :soldier: :soldier:
I WAS NOT BORN NOR DO I REMEMBER AZADI .Instead of re writing history thses are history NOT articles .Dont take opinion or even read this if you know the facts of history already & rebut accordingly .My opening statement stands & everything i will post is to substantiate that .WHAT PART YOU DONT UNDERSTAND???
There is no harm in knowing facts .
On Maulana Azad: Free India’s Tragic Hero
I believe that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had the right political
analysis and solution for the problems of the subcontinent – more so
than Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Golwalkar, Savarkar, Shyama
Prasad, Ambedkar or any other Indian of his time, let aside any of
the British.
Jinnah is today Pakistan’s solitary and rather improbable hero;
Golwalkar, Savarkar and Shyama Prasad are heroes of the Sangh Parivar as is Patel to an extent; Ambedkar’s name is taken by Dalit
politicians; Gandhi and Nehru are faintly remembered in today’s
Congress Party, and Bose is extolled in Bengal.
But I believe Azad’s words and actions were less part of the problem
and more part of the solution than the words and actions of any of
them.
I have personally typed in a statement of his issued on April 15
1946, which he endorsed again ten years later in his biographical
narrative India Wins Freedom.
The initial version of this book was published in 1959 by Orient
Longmans in New Delhi. Certain pages were kept confidential at
Azad’s request for a period of thirty years. In 1988, the complete
version was published, again by Orient Longmans, New Delhi.
I urge Azad’s April 15 1946 statement to be widely read and freely
distributed on the Internet today, to Indians of all faiths, to
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, to any and all citizens and well-wishers
of the subcontinent.
The reason I urge this is not out of any piety towards a neglected
great man. Rather, I am being extremely practical.
If I am right to think Azad had the most profound analytical insight
and prescience of any political man of his time, then the resolution
of key problems on the subcontinent which have persisted since then,
e.g. that of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, may also depend on an
understanding and application of his analysis today.
Azad’s stated (India Wins Freedom p. 197):
“It must be placed on record that the man in India who first fell for
Lord Mountbatten’s idea (of Partition) was Sardar Patel. Till
perhaps the very end Pakistan was for Jinnah a bargaining counter,
but in fighting for Pakistan, he had over-reached himself. His
action had so annoyed and irritated Sardar Patel that the Sardar was
now a believer in Partition.”
This statement formed a basis for my suggesting a game-theoretic
explanation of the roots of the current and continuing Kashmir
problem in “Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an
Agenda for the 1990s”, edited by W. E. James and Subroto Roy, Sage
1992, Karachi OUP 1993. Recognising the problem to have game-
theoretic roots, itself is a first and necessary step towards a
solution. Jai Hind."
Excerpt from India Wins Freedom by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, released
after 30 years, complete version, 1988, initial version 1959 ed. by
Humayun Kabir, pp. 150-152.
"I have considered from every possible point of view the scheme of
Pakistan as formulated by the Muslim League., As an Indian, I have
examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a
Muslim, I have examined its likely effects upon the fortunes of
Muslims of India.
Considering the scheme in all its aspects, I have come to the
conclusion that it is harmful not only for India as a whole but for
Muslims in particular. And in fact it creates more problems than it
solves.
I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It
suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are
impure. Such a division of territories into pure and impure is un-
Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides
men and countries into holy and unholy – a division which is a
repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognizes no such
division and the prophet says “God made the whole world a mosque for
me”.
Further, it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol of
defeatism, and has been built on the analogy of the Jewish demand for
a national home. It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold
their own in India as a whole, and would be content to withdraw to a
corner specially reserved for them.
One can sympathise with the aspiration of the Jews for such a
national home, as they are scattered all over the world and cannot in
any region have any effective voice in the administration.. The
conditions of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise. Over 90 million in
number, they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important
element in Indian life to influence decisively all questions of
administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by
concentrating them in certain areas.
In such a context, the demand for Pakistan loses all force. As a
Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to
treat the whole of India as my domain and to shape in the shaping of
its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of
cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a
mere fragment of it.
As is well known, Mr. Jinnah’s Pakistan scheme is based on his two
nation theory. His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences, Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations have separate States, When Dr Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr. Jinnah that Hindus and Muslims live side by side in thousands of Indian towns, villages and hamlets, Mr. Jinnah replied that this is no way affected their separate nationality. Two nations, according to M Jinnah, confront one another in every hamlet, village and town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two States.
I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge
it from the point of view of Muslim interest alone. I shall go
still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of
Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept
it myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the
truth is that even if I examine the scheme from the point of view of
the communal interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the
conclusion that it can in no way benefit them or allay their
legitimate fears.
Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if
we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into
two States, one with a majority of Muslims and the other of Hindus.
In the Hindustan State there will remain 35 million Muslims scattered
in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in UP, 12
percent in Bihar and 9 percent in Madras, they will be weaker than
they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their
homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up
well known centres of Muslim culture and civilization there.
They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien
and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and
economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become
an unadulterated Hindu raj.
On the other hand, their position within the Pakistan State will be
vulnerable and weak. Nowhere in Pakistan will their majority be
comparable to the Hindu majority in the Hindustan States. ( NB Azad
could hardly imagine even at this point the actual British
Partition of Punjab and Bengal, let aside the later separation of
Bangladesh from West Pakistan, SR. )
In fact, their majority will be so slight that will be offset by the
economical, educational and political lead enjoyed by non-Muslims in
these areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were
overwhelmingly Muslim in population, it still could hardly solve the
problem of Muslims in Hindustan.
Two States confronting one another, offer no solution of the problem
of one another’s minorities, but only lead to retribution and
reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages. The scheme of
Pakistan therefore solves no problems for the Muslims. It cannot
safeguard their rights where they are in minority nor as citizens of
Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs which they
would enjoy as citizens of a major State like the Indian Union.
It may be argued that if Pakistan is so much against the interest if
the Muslims themselves, then why should such a large section of
Muslims be swept away by its lure? The answer is to be found in the
attitude of certain communal extremists among the Hindus. When the
Muslim League began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a
sinister pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it out of fear
that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslim and trans-Indian
Muslim States.
The opposition acted as an incentive to the adherents of the League.
With simple though untenable logic they argued that if Hindus were so
opposed to Pakistan, surely it must be of benefit to Muslims. An
atmosphere of emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable
appraisement impossible and swept away especially the younger and
more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt
that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be
