Historical evidences for engagement of Islamic scholars by the government after Pakistan was founded and while Jinnah was alive

[M. Sarmad]

Frontier Gandhi would have succeeded without the interference of Pir, Peernis, Ayatollahs and Imams.

Such a statement is disrespectful towards the collective conscience of the Pashtun nation.

Convenient. Ayatullahs don't either right?

Ayatullahs are the epitome of Mullahism but their role in the context of the Pakistan movement was relatively inconsequential due to their limited numbers and influence in British India. The highly organized and politically motivated Deoband Mullahs played a pivotal role as pillars of Islamic orthodoxy. Despite being in the majority, the Barelvis lacked effective organization and played a secondary role in comparison to Deoband Mullahs. Needless to say, the entire religious establishment regardless of their sectarian affiliations vehemently opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan movement

 

[HAIDER]

Such a statement is disrespectful towards the collective conscience of the Pashtun nation.



Ayatullahs are the epitome of Mullahism but their role in the context of the Pakistan movement was relatively inconsequential due to their limited numbers and influence in British India. The highly organized and politically motivated Deoband Mullahs played a pivotal role as pillars of Islamic orthodoxy. Despite being in the majority, the Barelvis lacked effective organization and played a secondary role in comparison to Deoband Mullahs. Needless to say, the entire religious establishment regardless of their sectarian affiliations vehemently opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan movement

Agreed Pakistan faced the curse of mullah in the form of all types of terrorism for the last 30 years.

 

[El Sidd]

Such a statement is disrespectful towards the collective conscience of the Pashtun nation.

Such a statement is quite reflective of political realities of the 40s.

Ayatullahs are the epitome of Mullahism but their role in the context of the Pakistan movement was relatively inconsequential due to their limited numbers and influence in British India. The highly organized and politically motivated Deoband Mullahs played a pivotal role as pillars of Islamic orthodoxy. Despite being in the majority, the Barelvis lacked effective organization and played a secondary role in comparison to Deoband Mullahs. Needless to say, the entire religious establishment regardless of their sectarian affiliations vehemently opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan movement

So people just turned out for voting due to them being educated and politically mature in 1940s? No populist slogans required, no religious aspirations provoked? Sounds like a utopian idea of princely states where people consulted the priests for daily life chores like they do now.

 

[Ssan]

That will be much better, dear Sir. Here you will be held back by foul-mouthed gutter elements.

Or gaslit needlessly, as everyone can see.

Allow me to reiterate that it is you, not me, who is making assertions in this conversation. I am simply asking you to provide evidence to support your claim. Merely stating that a copy of the letter exists in the British archives is insufficient to establish its existence and authenticity, particularly when you acknowledge that you have not personally seen the letter and are relying on hearsay.

So far what we know is that Dr. Ayesha unearthed this highly significant 1948 letter in 2017. However, she has failed to produce the original letter and has not asserted its presence in the British archives. Three years later, one Ishtiaq Lahori makes a similar claim in his book but has also not presented the original letter. These accounts fall short of providing sufficient evidence to establish even the existence, let alone the authenticity, of the letter in question.

There are several lingering questions that require answers in this matter. Firstly, the whereabouts of this letter for the past 70 years are unknown, and it raises the question of why it was not mentioned earlier. If we assume that it was part of secret British documents declassified in 2017, then its authenticity becomes inherently questionable, warranting a separate debate. Moreover, the language in which the letter was purportedly written raises doubts about its authenticity. It is possible that it could be feedback from British diplomats in Cairo to their government regarding Jinnah's relationship with Banna, but in that case, it may not qualify as a letter per se. Until these questions are adequately addressed and answered, this discussion will remain purely speculative rather than an academic discourse.

The reason for you desperately questioning the letter’s authenticity has nothing to do with its actual countenance and more to do with the biases in your world view. By all means, I hope that some kind Pakistani British gentleman can visit the archive and generate us a digital copy of it so we can post it here. Alternatively, someone can pay $10 and get a copy. This was already suggested in post #3.

 

[Ssan]

Allow me to reiterate that it is you, not me, who is making assertions in this conversation. I am simply asking you to provide evidence to support your claim. Merely stating that a copy of the letter exists in the British archives is insufficient to establish its existence and authenticity, particularly when you acknowledge that you have not personally seen the letter and are relying on hearsay.

This is an absurd standard to hold. If you hold this standard, then nothing that we quote of Jinnah has been seen by any of us. They are all stored in some mismanaged archives in Pakistan somewhere. Probably only seen by a handful of people that you can provide first hand evidence of. I could claim that secularists have buried all evidence of letters, that they have fabricated stuff, or misunderstood that this was not Jinnah somehow. This would not be serious.

The fact is that we trust archival work from govt sources for two reasons. One, they are verifiable. And two, we have some people, some testimony by people who claim to have seen them. If you think that Ayesha Jalal and Dr Ishtiaq made up the letter, you are free to do so. If you think that the British High Commissioner would make a mistake on this matter, again, you are free to do so. You are also free to believe the earth is flat. Your argument lacks both any substance or reason.

As for me, I trust the British archival process much more than the Pakistani one.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Or gaslit needlessly, as everyone can see.

We will have these and other disagreements as long as we continue to deliberate in these stressful circumstances. Sadly, the essential point remains; a document seems to be missing, and it has to be traced. Dr. Ayesha claiming that it existed, without showing a copy or a document trace, and her being cited by a later researcher, are not tenable proofs for the document's existence.

I have written to a friend who may be in the UK at the moment, asking if he can help. If he says yes, that may sort out the issue. If he says yes, and the document is untraceable, the issue remains open. If he says no, the issue remains open.

Let us wait and see.

 

[Ssan]

We will have these and other disagreements as long as we continue to deliberate in these stressful circumstances. Sadly, the essential point remains; a document seems to be missing, and it has to be traced. Dr. Ayesha claiming that it existed, without showing a copy or a document trace, and her being cited by a later researcher, are not tenable proofs for the document's existence.

I have written to a friend who may be in the UK at the moment, asking if he can help. If he says yes, that may sort out the issue. If he says yes, and the document is untraceable, the issue remains open. If he says no, the issue remains open.

Let us wait and see.

Nothing is missing. I have linked the exact document file in the archives on the national British archives page on post # 3. You can pay $10 for the document kind sir. Just setup an account on the link I already included in post # 3. That’s the cost of an Uber ride. There is no need to doubt Ayesha Jallals or Dr Ishtiaq on this matter.

 

[Ssan]

You can pay $10 for the document kind sir. Just setup an account on the link I already included in post # 3. That’s the cost of an Uber ride. There is no need to doubt Ayesha Jallals or Dr Ishtiaq on this matter.

The issue for me is not in procuring the copy and verifying it ourselves. I think that’s a great idea and suggested it in post#3. It’s the gaslighting here. Insisting that Jalal and Ishtiaq are referring to a letter in the Jinnah Papers. Which has a different date, content and words. Then insisting that they are making it up, yada yada yada. Then that they are not serious protractors.

What happens if someone tomorrow says that the archivalist of the Jinnah papers is just making it up. That we want digital copies for every letter attached in that work? It would be just needless gaslighting.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It’s the gaslighting here. Insisting that Jalal and Ishtiaq are referring to a letter in the Jinnah Papers. Which has a different date, content and words. Then insisting that they are making it up, yada yada yada. Then that they are not serious protractors.

My friend, it appears that you either struggle with comprehension or are intentionally misleading with your response, which is a classic red herring. Read again, carefully. No one has claimed that Dr. Ayesha fabricated this letter herself. Instead, phrases such as "this observation suggests that she is talking about the same letter" and "maybe they are mixing up things" have been used, merely highlighting possibilities. The argument being made is that without further confirmation, these claims cannot be accepted or rejected, particularly considering that the assertion, which arises 70 years after the "incident", holds significance and has the potential to introduce new perspectives to a subject extensively debated by scholars and academics for the past seven decades... On the other hand, you insist that Dr. Ayesha's blog should be unquestionably regarded as the gospel truth, and anyone asking for evidence is desperate and akin to those who believe in a flat Earth. Let us leave it to the readers to assess which approach is more impartial and reasonable.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So people just turned out for voting due to them being educated and politically mature in 1940s? No populist slogans required, no religious aspirations provoked? Sounds like a utopian idea of princely states where people consulted the priests for daily life chores like they do now.

In the 1946 elections, the mullahs aligned with the Congress party in the NWFP, and Congress gained an absolute majority. However, just one year later in 1947, over 99% of KP's population voted to join Pakistan in a referendum, despite the majority mullahs' alignment with Congress and their call for a boycott (though turnout remained low). The influence of mullahs was not as significant as it is often portrayed. Religion was not the primary factor behind the voting patterns at that time. If you want more details about the KP political dynamics during that time, read Cunningham. He observed an interesting phenomenon where, besides factors such as Taburwali, even a single sheep slaughter could influence around ten votes. The alleged role of mullahs in persuading KP to join Pakistan is an exaggeration and a later-day fabrication.

 

[Ssan]

My friend, it appears that you either struggle with comprehension or are intentionally misleading with your response, which is a classic red herring. Read again, carefully. No one has claimed that Dr. Ayesha fabricated this letter herself. Instead, phrases such as "this observation suggests that she is talking about the same letter" and "maybe they are mixing up things" have been used, merely highlighting possibilities. The argument being made is that without further confirmation, these claims cannot be accepted or rejected, particularly considering that the assertion, which arises 70 years after the "incident", holds significance and has the potential to introduce new perspectives to a subject extensively debated by scholars and academics for the past seven decades... On the other hand, you insist that Dr. Ayesha's blog should be unquestionably regarded as the gospel truth, and anyone asking for evidence is desperate and akin to those who believe in a flat Earth. Let us leave it to the readers to assess which approach is more impartial and reasonable.

I have no problems with comprehension. I don’t have the inclination to gaslight either. You on the other hand seen to have abundance in both of these issues.

Regarding archives being discovered 70 years after and event, it is you once again who is ignorant on the laws surrounding sensitive documents in the British archives and the American archives.

Your viewpoints in this regards are as clownish as those held by flat earthers. If Ayesha Jalal and Dr Ishtiaq are to be questioned, our entire history ought to be questioned. Including the Jinnah papers. Including the entirety of the archives of Pakistan.

The document in question is open source in the British archives. Pay $10 and obtain a copy. The link to do so is in post #3. You can’t say anything close to that for any of the letters in the Pakistan archives.

 

[Ssan]

In the 1946 elections, the mullahs aligned with the Congress party in the NWFP, and Congress gained an absolute majority. However, just one year later in 1947, over 99% of KP's population voted to join Pakistan in a referendum, despite the majority mullahs' alignment with Congress and their call for a boycott (though turnout remained low). The influence of mullahs was not as significant as it is often portrayed. Religion was not the primary factor behind the voting patterns at that time. If you want more details about the KP political dynamics during that time, read Cunningham. He observed an interesting phenomenon where, besides factors such as Taburwali, even a single sheep slaughter could influence around ten votes. The alleged role of mullahs in persuading KP to join Pakistan is an exaggeration and a later-day fabrication.

This should be discussed seperately.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have no problems with comprehension. I don’t have the inclination to gaslight either. You on the other hand seen to have abundance in both of these issues.

Regarding archives being discovered 70 years after and event, it is you once again who is ignorant on the laws surrounding sensitive documents in the British archives and the American archives.

Your viewpoints in this regards are as clownish as those held by flat earthers. If Ayesha Jalal and Dr Ishtiaq are to be questioned, our entire history ought to be questioned. Including the Jinnah papers. Including the entirety of the archives of Pakistan.

The document in question is open source in the British archives. Pay $10 and obtain a copy. The link to do so is in post #3. You can’t say anything close to that for any of the letters in the Pakistan archives.

My friend, resorting to petty personal attacks will not validate your position. Let us maintain composure and engage in a calm and respectful manner.

And I myself mentioned the possibility of the letter being a recently declassified classified document in post #117, so any insinuation of my ignorance is unwarranted. Let us keep the conversation focused

Disregarding your immature personal remarks, Dr. Ayesha is a respected author, who, like any scholar, is not immune to making errors. If you have actually read her work, you would understand that rejecting her perspective does not equate to rejecting our history.

As for the link you provided, I've been trying to register using the link you shared, but it keeps showing me an "Access Denied" message.

..... If Ayesha Jalal and Dr Ishtiaq are to be questioned, our entire history ought to be questioned. Including the Jinnah papers. Including the entirety of the archives of Pakistan.

I believe there is a little confusion here.

This claim has been made by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa of Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy fame, not by the respected historian Ayesha Jalal. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Ssan]

My friend, resorting to petty personal attacks will not validate your position. Let us maintain composure and engage in a calm and respectful manner.

And I myself mentioned the possibility of the letter being a recently declassified classified document in post #117, so any insinuation of my ignorance is unwarranted. Let us keep the conversation focused

Disregarding your immature personal remarks, Dr. Ayesha is a respected author, who, like any scholar, is not immune to making errors. If you have actually read her work, you would understand that rejecting her perspective does not equate to rejecting our history.

As for the link you provided, I've been trying to register using the link you shared, but it keeps showing me an "Access Denied" message.




I believe there is a little confusion here.

This claim has been made by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa of Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy fame, not by the respected historian Ayesha Jalal. Or am I missing something here?

This back and forth I rate very lowly. But yes, on the singular point of which Ayesha, yes indeed, it is Ayesha Siddiqa.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Army and Fauji Junta prevented formation of constitution after formation of Pakistan

Evidence : Review of Events and focusing on beneficiary


1- Mohammad Ali Jinnah set aside after formation of Pakistan

2- Liaqat Ali Khan assassination in middle of Military troops how odd is that ?

3- Prevention of Fatima Jinnah from giving any interview for 2 years after death of Jinnah 50% , stuck on deserted road between airport and Hospital because Ambulance was not functional

4- Prevention of formation of Civilian focused constitution !! The environment was created to depend on
Military Sipa Salar , where a system was position to train , future Sipa Salar who believed in FAUJI is more important then Pakistani Citizen

5- The Superiority complex Generals who rigged elections to defeat Fatima Jinnah , then that same General went on tours of foreign countries , wearing Tuxedoes and Suits 1960's-1965

6 - Rise of Awami League in Bangladesh , and Clear victory , Army General again made it issue of their petty Pride and fucked up country, by refusing to allow Awami Party to come to power under Mujib
1970-1971

7- Then Army General pushed Pakistan into Afghanistan war for 40 years ****** up 2 generation of Pakistani in the process 1976-2012

8- First agreeable constitution of Pakistan late 70's which in end no one followed in 2022

9 - 2022 Army General again fucked up Pakistan by toppling a stable government of Imran Khan
The secret torture
The the beating of Civilians
The kidnapping of citizen of Pakistan



In this whole story Army is always the beneficiary getting 40-50% of Pakistani Budget for raising their own families in Posh style


Have you every seen a Army General living in modest home?

Ever seen a Army General , call a Taxi , and take his family to public hospital ?? Never


No more!!! , Pakistani People don't need you Army or Fuji