Theories on Pakistan's origins

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Logic Note,

You can call it "dislike", just as I can call Pakistanis who express views that you consider "hate" as expressing "dislike", however the content of their posts, and the general trend of their opinions is not different at all from what you would call "hate" from some Pakistanis, therefore I would argue that you really have no conclusive way of concluding one way or the other in the cases of either Indians or Pakistanis. I would go so far as to say that I have heard far more "hateful" statements about Pakistanis and Pakistan and support for breaking it up from Indians, than I have heard from Pakistanis about India, even on the infamous PDF - but of course, that is relative.

As far as your statement regarding Pakistani support for the Kashmiri freedom movement is concerned, Pakistanis have their own issues with India with respect to Baluchistan and East Pakistan. Like I mentioned to Stealth in another thread, both sides are guilty of interventionist policies, and neither has the upper moral hand - so it is incorrect to argue that Indians have reasons to "dislike" Pakistan while Pakistanis do not. There is negative sentiment both ways, and with just cause.

I disagree completely with how you lump in secularism with "democracy" and "respect for individual rights". Secularism is not the only means to achieve Democracy and respect for individual rights. Respect for others can be found lacking in both atheists and those who are religious. Pakistan's evolution is occurring within the context of its culture, religion and society - and as long as respect for the rights of all individuals is the goal that is being aimed for, I see no issues with a lack of secularism. India, despite avowing secularism, and possessing a secular curriculum, has an equal, if not greater, percentage of human rights issues, prejudice and discrimination. Are improvements being made? Of course, just as there are improvements being made in Pakistan. So when the evolution - secular in India's case, religion based in Pakistan's - throws up similar results in "respect for individuals and their rights" I fail to see how you can conclude that the Pakistani model is flawed, when the process hasn't finished, and has been subject to so many influences due from the peculiar circumstances surrounding Pakistan since 1947. Our struggle to understand self is different, it is different for every society - it is the answers that are come across during that struggle that are important - and like I have argued above, I do not agree that "our way" will reject, or is rejecting, "democracy and respect for individual rights".

I think you are misunderstanding the situation in Pakistan if you think that only Pakistanis are responsible for the extremism that is present. The first correction would be this generation of Taliban - there is no "generation" here, they remain a minority and concentrated in "organizations", and their emergence has been the result of events the world over. Their existence says nothing about previous Pakistani "generations".

The same with dictators - their existence is the result of the lack of institutional development, bar the military, which was influenced by events and circumstances both within Pakistan and external to Pakistan - so again, hard to pin the entire blame for "Democracy's failure" on Pakistani society (or how it has evolved) - it is nonetheless only one facet of Pakistan's evolution. Within the context of democracy, there is a tremendous desire to see democracy implemented within a majority of Pakistanis, which would indicate that the evolution of Pakistanis, by means you disagree with, has not taken anything away from appreciating this "fundamental idea" you mention. We haven't been able to come up with a system that would offer continuity to this vision, but that doesn't mean Pakistanis don't desire it.

With respect to your reference to "right wing parties in India" - I am not sure what Pakistan has to do with that - our political landscape and circumstances are going to be different from yours - we will follow a different path to wherever we end up.

Pakistan has changed just as India has changed - you are mistaken when you think that previous generations of Pakistanis did not fight for democracy, or believe in it. Pakistanis have always believed in those values. Our history textbooks, much maligned, do not teach us to "hate" - I, and many others on this forum, are a product of those books. It is regretful that we have trivialized our pre-Islamic history, but that alone does not teach to hate.

Indians are fond of throwing in the "Madrassa education" jibe, but until recently a very small number of students actually received an education from them, and non-religious schools remain a far larger source of education for most Pakistanis. The problem has not been the type of education, but the lack of it. We were looking at thirty percent literacy rates a few years ago, and even now a smaller number of the "fifty percent literate" Pakistanis today have a "quality education". I think too many people read about the Saudi and Palestinian text books, and then impose that impression on Pakistan, and it is completely wrong. We are not systematically taught that the "Hindu is evil", though obviously, like any nation, the version of history we read about vis a vis India is supportive of our "version of the events".

The "Blind Faith" issue is an interesting one - Samudra, Stealth and I had a pretty good back and forth over whether it is religion that is inherently evil or people, who can take any ideology (Stalin, Mao, Hitler), corrupt it, and turn it into a source for evil and power. I'll see if I can find the thread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

respected Sir
In my view These two last Paragraphs represnts the contradiction that present pakistan faces .
First you say that Pakistan was created for Muslims of India as a seperate homeland and then you say that it was never meant to be a theocracy .
if they belived in Secularism .. then why seperate land for relegious grp . and if it was a seperate land for a religious group then whats wrong when some ppl want to make it theocracy?

isnt that a contradiction ??

Forgive me for piping in here, but it is not a contradiction at all - You think of it as a contradiction because in your mind the existence of a "secular India" meant that there should have been no concerns for Muslims at all. But reality is different - even with the declaration in favor of "equality of man and rights" in the US constitution, slavery, segregation and discrimination continued. So first of all, lets get rid of the notion that just because the new nation of India avowed to be secular, there was any reason for certain groups to simply take her on her word and not worry about repercussions and discrimination as a minority. If you can come to terms with that, then the rationale behind creating a separate state for a particular minority group is clear.

Therefore, Pakistan was created for Muslims to safeguard their interests, and a Muslim nation is not synonymous with an Islamic nation.

 

[bobloblaw]

All I know is, these MMA and islamists didnt want Pakistan then, and they dont want it now!! They are planning on destroying Pakistan by starting up old rivalries.
Also, they are destroying anyone who does any good for the state. Whether Ahmadies or Ismailies or Bohras are muslim or not, it is upto god to decide. But I have seen them in action, and if anyone says they are traitors, they are not. Infact, they seem to be doing more for islam than any other mullah, or mullah organization, is.

 

[bobloblaw]

Very true in its technical sense, but Pakistan is a Islamic Country and the laws are to be made on the basis of Islam and as per the ideology of Islamic Naiton the command of a Islamic State should be in the hand of Only a Muslim!

Please tell me where in the Quran says you can decide who a muslim is.

 

[Flintlock]

Therefore, Pakistan was created for Muslims to safeguard their interests, and a Muslim nation is not synonymous with an Islamic nation.

The day that poet Iqbal talked about Pakistan, history had been predestined.

The fact is, that if India had remained undivided, it would have been next to impossible to hold it together.
Muslim Kashmir itself is finding the idea of being part of a "hindu" federation unpalatable. I can't imagine the extremely clannish balochis and pathans living in peace.

I personally think, that partition was the best option at the time. Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah made the right decision.

 

[niaz]

respected Sir
In my view These two last Paragraphs represnts the contradiction that present pakistan faces .
First you say that Pakistan was created for Muslims of India as a seperate homeland and then you say that it was never meant to be a theocracy .
if they belived in Secularism .. then why seperate land for relegious grp . and if it was a seperate land for a religious group then whats wrong when some ppl want to make it theocracy?

isnt that a contradiction ??

I have asked similar question myself to the father of a close friend who was educated in Aligarh ( as many affluent muslims were during early 20th century) and was an ML activist; having met the Quaid himself.

In a democracy, there is one man one vote. Any country where 80% of the population were non muslims (as it was in the British India); parliament being supreme and dominated by Hindus; can pass laws to favour the majority only.

For arguments sake, Indian parliament can make a law that forbids slaughter of the cows. Can even pass a law to forbid eating of meat altogether. Can forbid Azaan on loudspeakers etc.

How would muslims react to such acts of parliament? Wouldnt there be a repeat of the Babri mosque riots ever so often? And wouldnt Muslim suffer the same fate as they did recently in Narendar Modi's Gujrat?? There was a real danger that in a Hindu dominated parliament laws would be passed that would be detrimental to the practice of Islamic faith. Thus the need for the two nation theory.

Religious leadership was against ML primarily because its president HH Agha Khan (an Ismaili) and even Quaide Azam were not considered true muslims by many Deobandi educated ulemas. A prime example of the will of majority ram rodded on the minority is in the laws of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. Here Shia's being in the minority, are forbidden to take out processions and can only hold Muharram majaalis behind closed doors. This could have happened to Muslims in general in united India. If BJP, Shiv Sena, Bajran Dal and RSS have their say, it could happen in not too distant future as well.

Once Pakistan has been created; two nation theory became superfluous. No law can be passed which is contrary to Islam and Muslims have all the freedom to practice their religion. Quaid in his 11th August speach, therefore gave this freedom to all the citizens of Pakistan. You dont need to be a secular state to give full rights to your citizens. If there appears to be a contradiction in my post, it is my fault that I have failed to express my views clearly.

Pakistan was always meant to be an Muslim State as against an Islamic theocratic state such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. It is a pity that since the advent of the bigot Zia, Pakistan has been highjacked by the very people who were against her creation in the first place.

 

[niaz]

All your theories are good on Pakistan's origins. Now what are your theories on Pakistan's disintegration? Or are you just going to blame the infidels?

In my opinion, once the threat of Hindu domination disappears other vested interests start prevailing. Most effective interest is the ethnic differences. This was exploited by Hitler and Mussolini in early 20th century. This was successfully exploited by Mujib ur Rahman in 1971. In Pakistan most of the ethic movements such as ANP, BLA, Jiay Sindh, MQM and the Seraiki are based on ethnicity. Raj Thakery has started a similar movement in Maharashter. Sri Lanka also suffer from the same problem. West is not free from this bigotry either. Yugoslavia disintegrated because of ethnic differences. In Germany there is a call " Outsiders Out"; they mean Turks. In the UK there is BNP and also in France. In the US there was Klu Klux Klan.

Alas, most human beings have still not risen beyond a very narrow tribal mentality. IMO Indians are the worst in the world. While outwardly there is a facade of secularism and unity; all you have to do is read marriage column to see the prejudice. In the UAE Gulf news, the many advertisement for marriage display an extremely narrow minded view. For example one ad I read specified that only a "Nair" partner was wanted. Wouldn't you call it ultimate racism.

In the nutshell, the fact the Pakistan split up in 1971 proves that religion alone is not enough to hold the country together. Language and cultural difference can be very hard to overcome.

 

[Flintlock]

IMO Indians are the worst in the world. While outwardly there is a facade of secularism and unity; all you have to do is read marriage column to see the prejudice.

I definitely don't agree with that. If Indians are the worst racists in the world, the wouldn't put their faith in a united India.

How often does a white-black marriage take place in the US? Now, would you call Americans racist by this yardstick?

The fact is, that Indian society is a fragmented one. Inter-caste marriage is quite rare, and this is the price to pay for a diversified society.

This is just human nature.

Societies organize themselves according to identity, but when society gets diversified beyond a point, people stop intermixing and live within their own tiny communities. If you live in a cosmopolitan city, you will know what I am talking about. People rarely meet their neighbours, and they don't know what is happening in their own street.

 

[niaz]

I definitely don't agree with that. If Indians are the worst racists in the world, the wouldn't put their faith in a united India.

How often does a white-black marriage take place in the US? Now, would you call Americans racist by this yardstick?

The fact is, that Indian society is a fragmented one. Inter-caste marriage is quite rare, and this is the price to pay for a diversified society.

This is just human nature.

Societies organize themselves according to identity, but when society gets diversified beyond a point, people stop intermixing and live within their own tiny communities. If you live in a cosmopolitan city, you will know what I am talking about. People rarely meet their neighbours, and they don't know what is happening in their own street.

We are not talking about a black and white marriage here, nor a Hindu -Muslim marriage. Why IMO Indians are worst racists of all when it comes to marriage is that it is not enough that the other partner is of the same religion or speaks the same language and is from the same area. The ad I quoted meant that these people will inter mix only with "Nair". And you dont think it is racism!!

Your comments about cosmpolitan society is not relevant. Yes often you don't know who your neigbour is but the young mix freely . In the UK, there are black and white marriages, inter-faith marriages and many Indian/Pakistani- Euoropean marriages. It is only in India where they specify a particular caste.

I have posted how I percieve it.You are entitled to your view and if in your opinion it is not racism, I can live with it.

 

[Flintlock]

We are not talking about a black and white marriage here, nor a Hindu -Muslim marriage. Why IMO Indians are worst racists of all when it comes to marriage is that it is not enough that the other partner is of the same religion or speaks the same language and is from the same area. The ad I quoted meant that these people will inter mix only with "Nair". And you dont think it is racism!!

Your comments about cosmpolitan society is not relevant. Yes often you don't know who your neigbour is but the young mix freely . In the UK, there are black and white marriages, inter-faith marriages and many Indian/Pakistani- Euoropean marriages. It is only in India where they specify a particular caste.

I have posted how I percieve it.You are entitled to your view and if in your opinion it is not racism, I can live with it.

Well, a sizeable number of inter-caste marriages take place in India also, and mostly in cosmopolitan households.

We must understand that the caste system has little do do with the word 'racism', as the western world has described it. It is an ancient system of social organization and hierarchy, which became rigid over time.

"Caste" isn't about race, but about community, its more like a tribal identity thing.
If a 'Nair" wants to marry another "Nair", it has little to do with race, but a lot to do with preserving the identity and culture of the community.

An excellent example are the Parsis of India. They are forbidden to marry outside their tribe. Does that make them racist? Of course not. They are perhaps the most progressive community, and also some of India' greatest reformers, philanthropists and leaders.

Another important factor is that racism is always from top to bottom. i.e. the 'superior' race will refuse to mix with the 'inferior' one. However, in the caste system, even the supposedly inferior castes refuse to marry into a 'higher' caste, and are bent upon preserving their identity.


Perhaps untouchability can be called racism, as the untouchables did not occupy a place in the caste system per se, and were treated in an inhuman fashion. However, this is true for all ancient and medeival societies. Rome, Arabia, Persia and most other civilizations had an underclass which used to do the dirty work.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The caste system is akin to the Guild system of medieval England.

Birds of a feather flock together!

 

[Flintlock]

The caste system is akin to the Guild system of medieval England.

Birds of a feather flock together!

Yes, professional castes like goldsmiths (sonar), ironsmiths(lohar), washers(dhobi), masons, etc. etc. could be considered as guilds.

However, as Indian society became more and more rigid and withdrew into itself, innovation turned to ritual, and the once flourishing guilds became heriditary, where knowledge was to be learnt, not discovered.

 

[Logic note]

Dear Agno,

Hate is a state when someone is willing to or is
ready to take the fatal risk on his own existence, in order to harm others ,his vindictiveness has overtaken his ethical intellect .
and I think the behaviour of Pakistan signifies this.from Khalistani and Kashmiri Terrorist to Thugs like Dawood ibrahim has been sheltered in Pakistan
They have created the monsters of extremist Jehadis to hurt India and now these Ethically numb ppl have turned back on Pakistan itself .
To justify this behaviour ,you blame the Past and hence we both are struck in arrogance.

Its Naive to blame India for East Pakistan debacle .
Pakistan and its arrogance , its unwillingness to understand others , and use blind might to force its arrogance, is responsible for that breakup .
as of Balochistan - it is just a paranoia .. there is no Moral or materialistic support from india .

there cant be democracy without secularism because the basic fundamental of Democracy is Equality and freedom of Individual
to chose (and follow his faith) .Theocracy can never exists with democracy for a longer time specially when an individual decide
to change his faith ,his personal freedom will clash with Theocracy .

Lack of respect for others is lack of proper ethical teachings.which shall be tackled with education .
knoweldge and wisdom can teach any individual to understand and respect others.

AS PER your views about the problems in India - Existence of Problem is a normal in any human society, thats the part of dynamics of human mind but you shall always judge the society with the path taken by that society to deal with such problem .There will always be Klu Klux clan or Bajrang Dal in every society this deformity in Human intelligence will happen very often but that deformity shall never become part of political and social order .. or shall never intere with ethical justice .In India free press is there to raise the issue and independent( from theocracy and sword) Judiciary to deal with it .

I cant deny that there is no probelm in India .. but I know our press and Judicuary is free .

IF The process of Understanding self takes 60 years and you go back to same old stage again and again , from where you started
then there is Problem and the Problem is lack of courage to see inside .

I am sorry but i saw little bit of Taliban in Most of Pakistanis, some may take it to extreme as they did in Afganistan , others deny there past and beleive in superiority
of there faith over others .
I dont make my opinion about the society of Pakistan by its problem or by the extremist views of certain sections .. I will make my opinion by its the goal and the path
choosen by the collective consicnce of the society . for example there is KLu kluz clan in USA or so many right wing organisation who oppose
theory of evolution and have many other extremist views , but that society will be respected for the ethical laws which it implements to spread the equality and freedom .

 

[Logic note]

Respected Mr Niaz,

Simply What you have said is that Majority Hindues will not allow Muslims or any other Minorities to
follow their faith ?
well this is just an excuse because Minority in India is as free as Majority and even have their own personal Laws
while in Pakistan , Minorities have struggled for their basic freedom .

your view that Indians as the worst ..manifest lack of understanding of human behaviour .
Humans by nature choose familiar things and hence Matrimonials columns tend to search cultures whom they are familiar and are comfortable with, Like Pakistani Sunni
father will oppose his marriage to a Shia Groom .. so using that example to Prove your biased prejudice is very kiddish
by the way things have change drastically and Indians are going for Intercaste marriages , you need to be in India to see that .


Gujrat Riots - this is a classical fallacy used by most of Pakistani friend " I AM GOOD BECAUSE YOU ARE BAD" view
Gujrat Riots are black mark on Indian history , but it was riot instigatd by godhara incident where Muslim mobs burned a train and riot irrupted all over Gujrat , Hindus and Muslims both perished in those ugly days .

 

[Spring Onion]

PAKISTAN DECLARATION, 1933

Full text of Rahmat Ali's Pakistan Declaration (Now or Never). Rahmat Ali issued this document on January 28, 1933 from his student address in Cambridge. This Declaration comprised the first part of his Pak Plan, and only dealt with the area of Pakistan.

NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?

[Document is headed by Arabic script from the Qur'an, 13:11: "Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they change their inner selves".]

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN - by which we mean the five Northern units of India, viz.: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan - for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

Our brave but voiceless nation is being sacrificed on the altar of Hindu Nationalism not only by the non-Muslims, but to the lasting disgrace of Islam, by our own so-called leaders, with reckless disregard to our future and in utter contempt of the teachings of history. The Indian Muslim Delegation at the Round Table Conference have committed an inexcusable and prodigious blunder. They have submitted, in the name of Hindu Nationalism, to the perpetual subjection of the ill-starred Muslim nation. These leaders have already agreed, without any protest or demur and without any reservation, to a Constitution based on the principle of an All-India Federation. This, in essence, amounts to nothing less than signing the death-warrant of Islam and its future in India. In doing so, they have taken shelter behind the so-called Mandate from the community.

But they forgot that that suicidal Mandate was framed and formulated by their own hands. That Mandate was not the Mandate of the Muslims of India. Nations never give Mandates to their representatives to barter away their very souls; and men of conscience never accept such self-annihilating Mandates, if given - much less execute them. At a time of crisis of this magnitude, the foremost duty of saving statesmanship is to give a fair, firm and fearless lead, which, alas, has been persistently denied to eighty millions of our co-religionists in India by our leaders during the last seventy-five years. These have been the years of false issues, of lost opportunities and of utter blindness to the most essential and urgent needs of the Muslim interests. Their policy has throughout been nerveless in action and subservient in attitude. They have all along been paralysed with fear and doubt, and have deliberately, time and again, sacrificed their political principles for the sake of opportunism and expediency. To do so even at this momentous juncture of Bedlam. It is idle for us not to look this tragic truth in the face. The tighter we shut our eyes, the harder the truth will hit us.

At this critical moment, when this tragedy is being enacted, permit us to appeal to you for your practical sympathy and active support for the demand of a separate Federation - a matter of life and death for the Muslims of India - as outlined and explained below.

India, constituted as it is at the present moment, is not the name of one single country; nor the home of one single nation. It is, in fact, the designation of a State created for the first time in history, by the British. It includes peoples who have never previously formed part of India at any period in its history; but who have, on the other hand, from the dawn of history till the advent of the British, possessed and retained distinct nationalities of their own.

In the five Northern Provinces of India, out of a total population of about forty millions, we, the Muslims, contribute about 30 millions. Our religion, culture, history, tradition, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are basically and fundamentally different from those of the people living in the rest of India. The ideals which move our thirty million brethren-in-faith living in these provinces to make the highest sacrifices are fundamentally different from those which inspire the Hindus. These differences are not confined to the broad basic principles - far from it. They extend to the minutest details of our lives. We do not inter-dine; we do not inter-marry. Our national customs, calendars, even our diet and dress are different.

It is preposterous to compare, as some superficial observers do, the differences between Muslims and Hindus with those between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Both the Catholics and Protestants are part and parcel of one religious system - Christianity; while the Hindus and Muslims are the followers of two essentially and fundamentally different religious systems. Religion in the case of Muslims and Hindus is not a matter of private opinion as it is in the case of Christians; but on the other hand constitutes a Civic Church which lays down a code of conduct to be observed by their adherents from birth to death.

If we, the Muslims of Pakstan, with our distinct marks of nationality, are deluded into the proposed Indian Federation by friends or foes, we are reduced to a minority of one to four. It is this which sounds the death-knell of the Muslim nation in India for ever. To realise the full magnitude of this impending catastrophe, let us remind you that we thirty millions constitute about one-tenth of whole Muslim world. The total area of the five units comprising PAKSTAN, which are our homelands, is four times that of Italy, three times that of Germany and twice that of France; and our population seven times that of the Commonwealth of Australia, four times that of the Dominion of Canada, twice that of Spain, and equal to France and Italy considered individually.

These are facts - hard facts and realities - which we challenge anybody to contradict. It is on the basis of these facts that we make bold to assert without the least fear of contradiction that we, Muslims of PAKSTAN, do possess a separate and distinct nationality from the rest of India, where the Hindu nation lives and has every right to live. We, therefore, deserve and must demand the recognition of a separate national status by the grant of a separate Federal Constitution from the rest of India.

In addressing this appeal to the Muslims of India, we are also addressing it to the two other great interests - British and Hindu - involved in the settlement of India's future. They must understand that in our conviction our body and soul are at stake. Our very being and well-being depends upon it. For our five great Northern states to join an All-India Federation would be disastrous, not only to ourselves, but to every other race and interest in India, including the British and the Hindu.

This is more especially true when there is just and reasonable alternative to the proposed settlement, which will lay the foundations of a peaceful future for this great continent; and should certainly allow of the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another. This alternative is a separate Federation of these five predominantly (sic) Muslim units - Punjab, Afgania (part of NWFP), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.

The Muslim Federation of North-West India would provide the bulwark of a buffer state against any invasion either of ideas or arms from outside. The creation of such a Federation would not materially disturb the ratio of the Muslim and Hindu population in the rest of India. It is wholly to the interest of British and Hindu statesmanship to have an ally a free, powerful and contented Muslim nation having a similar but separate Constitution to that which is being enacted for the rest of India. Nothing but a separate Federation of homelands would satisfy us.

This demand is basically different from the suggestion put forward by Doctor Mohammed Iqbal in his Presidential address to the All-India Muslim League in 1930. While he proposed the amalgamation of the provinces into a single state forming a unit of the All-India Federation, we propose that these Provinces should have a separate Federation of their own. There can be no peace and tranquility in the land if we, the Muslims, are duped into a Hindu-dominated Federation where we cannot be the masters of our own destiny and captains of our own souls.

Do the safeguards provided for in the Constitution give us any scope to work for our salvation along our own lines? Not a bit. Safeguard is the magic word which holds our leaders spellbound, and has dulled their consciences. In the ecstasy of their hallucinations they think that the pills of safeguards can cure nation-annihilating earthquakes. Safeguards asked for by these leaders and agreed to by the makers of the Constitution can never be a substitute for the loss of separate nationality. We, the Muslims, shall have to fight the course of suicidal insanity to death.

What safeguards can be devised to prevent our minority of one in four in an All-India Federation from being sacrificed on every vital issue to the aims and interests of the majority race, which differs from us in every essential of individual and corporate life? What safeguards can prevent the catastrophe of the Muslim nation smarting and suffering eternally at the frustration of its every social and religious ideal? What safeguards can compensate our nation awakened to its national conscious for the destruction of its distinct national status? However effective and extensive the safeguards may be, the vital organs and proud symbols of our national life, such as army and navy, foreign relations, trade and commerce, communications, posts and telegraphs, taxation and customs, will not be under our control, but will be in the hands of a Federal Government, which is bound to be overwhelmingly Hindu. With all this, how can we, the Muslims, achieve any of our ideals if those ideals conflict - conflict as they must - with the ideals of Hindus?

The history of the last century, in this respect, is full of unforgettable lessons for us. Even one who runs may read them. To take just one instance. Despite all these safeguards and guarantees we have enjoyed in the past, the very name of our national language - URDU, even now the lingua franca of that great continent - has been wiped out of the list of Indian languages. We have just to open the latest census report to verify it. This by itself is a tragic fall. Are we fated to fall farther? But that too is dust in the scales by comparison with the tremendous national issues involving our whole future as a nation and a power not only India but also in the whole of Asia.

In the face of these incontrovertible facts, we are entitled to ask for what purpose we are being asked to make the supreme sacrifice of surrendering our nationality and submitting ourselves and our posterity to Non-Muslim domination? What good is likely to accrue to Islam and Muslims by going into the Federation is a thing which passes our understanding. Are we to be crucified just to save the faces of our leaders or to bolster up the preposterous that India can be a single nation? Is it with a view to achieve a compromise at all costs, or is it to support the illusion that Hindu nationalism is working in the interests of Muslims as well as Hindus? Irony is flattered to death by a mental muddle of such a nature and on such a scale. We have suffered in the past without a murmur and faced dangers without demur. The one thing we would never suffer is our own strangulation. We will not crucify ourselves upon the cross of Hindu nationalism in order to make a Hindu-holiday.

May we be permitted to ask of all those statesmen - Muslim or British or Hindu - supporting the Federal Constitution, if it is really desirable to make our nation sacrifice all that Islam has given us during the last fourteen hundred years to make India a nation? Does humanity really stand to gain by this stupendous sacrifice? We dare say that still in Islam the ancient fire glows and promises much for the future, if only the leaders would let it live. Whilst in Europe, excluding Russia, in about the same area as that of India and with about the same population, there live and prosper as many as twenty-six nations, with one and the same religion, civilisation and economic system, surely it is not only possible but highly desirable for two fundamentally different and distinct nations, i.e. Muslim and Hindu, to live as friendly neighbours in peace and prosperity in that vast continent. What bitter irony is it that our leaders have not the courage to stand up and demand the minimum for our political salvation.

We are face to face with a first-rate tragedy, the like of which has not been seen in the long and eventful history of Islam. It is not the question of a sect or of a community going down; but it is the supreme problem which affects the destiny of the whole of Islam and the millions of human beings who, till quite recently, were the custodians of the glory of Islam in India and the defenders of its frontiers. We have a still greater future before us, if only our soul can be saved from the perpetual bondage of slavery forged in an All-India Federation. Let us make no mistake about it. The issue is now or never. Either we live or perish for ever. The future is ours only if we live up to our faith. It does not lie in the lap of the gods, but it rests in our own hands. We can make or mar it. The history of the last century is full of open warnings, and they are as plain as were ever given to any nation. Shall it be said of us that we ignored