What's new

The election that created Pakistan!

Norwegian

BANNED
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
19,001
Reaction score
11
Country
Israel
Location
Norway
Even till the early and mid-1940s, the leadership of the All India Muslim League (AIML) wasn’t quite sure exactly what its status was among the sizeable Muslim minority of India.

In 1944, AIML’s leading man and strategist, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while talking to reporters in Bombay (present-day Mumbai), was lamenting that even though his opponents in the Indian National Congress (INC) were doing much to undermine AIML’s influence among the region’s Muslims, more damage in this respect was being done by certain Muslim politicians and outfits.

536ef8e468207.jpg

Confessional religious parties like the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind (JUH), and radical right-wing outfits such as the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar Movement were staunchly against the concept of ‘Muslim Nationalism’ being propagated by Jinnah and his party.

AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was derived from the thoughts of various Muslim intellectuals. Most of them had been inspired by the writings of 19th Century Muslim scholars such as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali.

Khan and Ali had pleaded to build a rational and modern Muslim middle-class in South Asia that would lead an intellectual and political movement to construct a distinct political and cultural identity for the Muslim minority of India.

But why were the AIML’s ideas in this regard being opposed by certain powerful Muslim groups?

JUH and radical groups like the Ahrar and the Khaksar believed that every Indian’s first goal should be independence from the British. They believed that Muslims of India were a significant minority (approximately 30per cent at the time) and (thus) would be in a position (after independence) to carve out a more powerful political, economic and cultural role for themselves in India.

They also claimed that AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was a construct based on the European idea of a nation-state and that Islam cannot be confined within the boundaries of nationalism.

AIML had performed poorly in most elections held in India’s Muslim-majority provinces. Bengal and Punjab contained the largest Muslim populations in undivided India. Though by the 1940s AIML had managed to make important inroads in Bengal, the party had been routed in Punjab in the elections held there in the 1930s.

In 1945 the British colonial government in India called for elections for the national and legislative assemblies. The election in the Punjab was to be held in February 1946.

The Congress’ aim was to win a majority in most provinces so it could press its claim to form a government of united (post-colonial) India. AIML’s goal was to win the polls in Muslim majority provinces so it could not only claim to be the largest Muslim party, but also assert its demand of carving out a separate Muslim nation-state from areas where the Muslims were in a majority.

The situation in the Punjab was tricky. Even though 57pc of Punjab’s population was Muslim, the AIML had badly lost the previous elections in the province.

Another defeat in the Punjab was guaranteed to deal a decisive blow to Jinnah and his party’s claims and demands.

The Congress understood this well and went all out to defeat the AIML in the Punjab.

The province was under the electoral dominance of the Unionists — a large outfit headed by Muslims belonging to the landed gentry and influential pirs (Muslim spiritual leaders). The party also had some Hindu and Sikh leaders.

In the last major election in the province (1937), the Unionists had won 95 seats (out of a total of 175). Congress had bagged 18 whereas the AIML had managed to win just one.

To guarantee another AIML thrashing in the Punjab, the Congress Party’s ace strategist, Sardar Patel, and the party’s leading Muslim leader, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, immediately went about constructing an airtight anti-AIML scenario.

The Congress, apart from contesting the election from its own platform (of Indian Nationalism), was also backing the Unionists in areas where the latter was expecting a tough fight from the AIML.

Apart from this, Patel dispatched a check of Rs50,000 (a hefty sum in those days) to Azad whose job it was to fund and co-ordinate anti-AIML Muslim groups such as the JUH, the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar.

The Ahrar and the Khaksar enjoyed support among Punjab’s Muslim petty-bourgeoisies. These two parties (along with JUH), provided the Congress with fiery clerics who went about denouncing the AIML as being a party of ‘British agents,’ and ‘fake Muslims’.

The powerful Unionist Party on the other hand claimed that it alone was the true representative of Punjab’s Muslim majority.

Jinnah, who had till then been repulsed by populist political tactics, got together with Punjab’s AIML President, Khan of Mamdot, to chalk out a strategy to counter the ruckus being raised by the Congress with the help of the Unionists, the Ahrar, the Khaskar, the JUH and the Sikh nationalist outfit, the Akali dal.

Jinnah and Mamdot first brought in hundreds of members of AIML’s student-wing, the All India Muslim Students Federation (AIMSF), from various parts of India. Also brought in were members of the AIMSF’s women’s wing.

College and university students (both male and female) belonging to the AIMSF were dispatched across the Punjab in groups and asked to hold small rallies in the cities, villages and towns of the province.

They were to explain AIML’s manifesto as a fight against economic exploitation and a struggle to create a separate Muslim nation-state where there will be economic benefits for all and religious harmony.

To counter the fiery denouncements being aired by members of the Ahrar, the Khaksar and the JUH, the AIML managed to win the support of a group of JUH leaders who had disagreed with their party’s policy of siding with the Congress and the Unionists.

Led by Islamic scholar, Alama Shabir Ahmad Usmani, this batch of JUH renegades successfully began to counter the theological arguments (against a separate Muslim nation-state) being leveled by the anti-AIML clerics and ulema.

The anti-AIML clerics had accused the AIML of ‘misguiding the Muslims of India’ and working to keep the Muslims under the influence of the forces of exploitation. The pro-AIML clerics counter-attacked by accusing the Ahrar and other such outfits of being Congress agents who were working to keep the Muslims ‘under the thumb of India’s Hindu majority.’

AIML was also armed with a rather radical manifesto. Largely authored by one of the leading members of the AIML’s leftist lobby — Danial Latifi (a committed Socialist) — the manifesto promised sweeping land reforms, religious harmony and an end to economic exploitation.

Another (last minute) attainment that Jinnah and his party managed to achieve was the support of the influential pirs of the province. Punjab’s pirs had for long been associated with the Unionist Party, but just as the elections drew near, many of them were convinced by the AIML leadership to switch sides and become part of the AIML.

The voter turnout was high on the day of the polls. The Unionists were expected to win the bulk of the seats, followed by the Congress.

But the results shocked the Congress and the Unionists. The AIML managed to win 73 seats (out of 175). The Unionists could only bag 20. The Congress won 51 and the Sikh Akali dal 22.

The Ahrar and the Khaksars failed to win even a single seat. The AIML bagged the largest share of the total Muslim vote (65pc). Just 19pc of the Muslim votes went to Ahrar and the Khaksars.

Though the Congress, the Unionists and the Akali dal managed to form a wobbly and short-lived coalition government in the Punjab, AIML finally managed to augment itself as India’s largest Muslim party.

It also did well in two other Muslim majority provinces. It won 113 (out of 230) seats in the Bengal and 27 (out of 60) in Sindh.

The results greatly accelerated the party’s demand for a separate Muslim nation-state, and after winning the provincial election in another Muslim-majority region, the NWFP (in early/mid-1947), the party finally managed to carve out Pakistan from the rest of India (August 1947).
The election that created Pakistan - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Its quite evident to "most" historians, even Islamist ones that Pakistan was born out of mere political struggle. Yet, its disgraceful that same people and parties stood by our military generals time and again against Pakistan's civil political forces.

Pakistan is NOT a product of some military struggle, hence our ever powerful defense establishment should stop interferring in its political affairs. Their job is at the border, not inside the capital. Take lessons from history and leave Pakistan's democratic forces alone.


@BDforever @Luffy 500 @idune @A.Rafay @Ahmad1996 @Akheilos @Armstrong @arushbhai @AstanoshKhan @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @balixd @batmannow @Bilal. @chauvunist @Crypto @Dr. Stranglove @Evil Flare @EyanKhan @Fahad Khan 2 @GIANTsasquatch @graphican @Green Arrow @Guleen Ahmed @HRK @Jazzbot @Junaid B @Jzaib @Khalidr @khawaja07 @Leader @Luftwaffe @Marshmallow @mr42O @Muhammad Omar @nomi007 @Pak123 @Pakistani shaheens @Pakistanisage @Peaceful Civilian @pkuser2k12 @Pukhtoon @PWFI @raazh @Rafael @Rashid Mahmood @RescueRanger @Saifkhan12 @Sedqal @SHAMK9 @Spy Master @Stealth @Strike X @SUPARCO @sur @syedali73 @Tameem @Tayyab1796 @Zarvan @waleed3601 @AdeelFaheem @Rajput_Pakistani @Men in Green @IceCold @LoveIcon @razahassan1997 @Dil Pakistan @asq @junaid hamza @Pukhtoon @jamahir @Strigon @Rafi @Ulla @HughSlaman @420canada @sathya @slapshot @raza_888 @hacsan @SBD-3 @cb4 @AsianUnion @Aether @Proudpakistaniguy @WishLivePak @Waffen SS @FaujHistorian @Fracker @Ranches @ghoul @Jf Thunder @GreenFalcon @genmirajborgza786 @orangzaib @Pakistani Exile @KURUMAYA @Irfan Baloch @ali_raza @Syed.Ali.Haider @dexter @Patriots @muslim_pakistani @W.11 @zaid butt @ajpirzada @Shoaib Rathore @OrionHunter @CHARGER @Major Sam @yesboss @TheNoob @Bratva @ghazaliy2k @Viny @StormShadow @suresh1773 @SOHEIL @venu309 @danish_vij @Force-India @faisal6309 @SpArK @S.U.R.B. @vsdave2302 @jarves @WAJsal @pursuit of happiness @Winchester @janon @pak-marine @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Donatello
 
Last edited:
Isn't it ironical that as stated in the title here - Pakistan was ' created' by an election and free , fair & regular elections in Pakistan remain elusive ?

BULLSEYE! That election was conducted under the administration of British Raj. When British left from here, so went 'free and fair' elections with them. It was only in 1970 that Pakistan managed to conduct free and fair elections accepted by all parties. Only it led to civil war and another partion of Pakistan when its defense establishment categorically REFUSED to hand-over power to the legitimate winner: Awami League from East Pakistan!
 
Last edited:
Its quite evident to "most" historians, even Islamist ones that Pakistan was born out of mere political struggle. Yet, its disgraceful that same people and parties stood by our military generals time and again against Pakistan's civil political forces.

That sounds like a non sequiter. It should not matter whether a nation was formed through a political movement or a military operation - in both cases, statecraft should only be done by civilians. The military should be completely subservient to civilian authority, and exist only to deal with violent threats against the state machinery.

The USA was formed through a military struggle. But that does not prevent the military from being subservient to the civilian government. Same with France, and many other countries.
 
That sounds like a non sequiter. It should not matter whether a nation was formed through a political movement or a military operation - in both cases, statecraft should only be done by civilians. The military should be completely subservient to civilian authority, and exist only to deal with violent threats against the state machinery.

The USA was formed through a military struggle. But that does not prevent the military from being subservient to the civilian government. Same with France, and many other countries.
You are right, but the Pakistani dilemma is relatively different. Civil Military equation was disturbed right from the beginning due to General Casey's disloyalty and non-commitment with the very concept of the new state. And the first Pakistani head of the Pakistani Army, General Ayub Khan (he self proclaimed himself Field Marshal), took up the airs that Khakis were bound to be custodian of ideological boundaries as well beside their essential raison d'etre i.e. defence of geographical boundaries. After the inception of Pakistan, AIML turned into a total disarray due to Jinnah's serious sickness and lack of any set strategy to convert it into an organized political party from a rag-tag emotional movement. Ethnic and hierarchical chaos in AIML provided a ripe opportunity to former unionist feudals to play their game in which they eventually succeeded by grabbing the reins of the country that they utterly opposed. The internal conflict in the then prevalent political class because a contributing factor in inflating embryonic khakis' desire to become custodian of the ideology as well. Uptil now, Pakistan Army will never tolerate any maneuver by the civilian leadership that would drift the country away from its ideological foundations. Godspeed Pakistan!
 
Pakistan is NOT a product of some military struggle, hence our ever powerful defense establishment should stop interferring in its political affairs. Their job is at the border, not inside the capital. Take lessons from history and leave Pakistan's democratic forces alone.
Spot on! The PA controls Pakistan's foreign policy. Few know who even the defence minister is or even Pakistan's foreign minister. It's all about the successive Chiefs who meet with the political representatives of other countries and not the democratically elected representatives of the govt of Pakistan.

Unless and until the PA Generals quit interfering in running the state and concentrate more on matters concerning the military, nothing is going to change. The Pakistani government even failed to rein in the ISI and make it accountable to parliament under pressure from the PA. So no prizes for guessing who calls the shots in Pakistan.

The result is there for all to see. Generals are not meant to rule. They are meant to serve the interests of the state under a democratic dispensation. It is maintained by many scholars that, “every country has an Army but in Pakistan, the Army has a country.”!!!

No wonder Pakistan is where it is today. The reset button needs to be pressed sooner than later before Pakistan goes completely down under. But that is easier said than done. Losing power and pelf is certainly not what Pakistan's defence establishment wants.
 
Even till the early and mid-1940s, the leadership of the All India Muslim League (AIML) wasn’t quite sure exactly what its status was among the sizeable Muslim minority of India.

In 1944, AIML’s leading man and strategist, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while talking to reporters in Bombay (present-day Mumbai), was lamenting that even though his opponents in the Indian National Congress (INC) were doing much to undermine AIML’s influence among the region’s Muslims, more damage in this respect was being done by certain Muslim politicians and outfits.

536ef8e468207.jpg

Confessional religious parties like the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind (JUH), and radical right-wing outfits such as the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar Movement were staunchly against the concept of ‘Muslim Nationalism’ being propagated by Jinnah and his party.

AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was derived from the thoughts of various Muslim intellectuals. Most of them had been inspired by the writings of 19th Century Muslim scholars such as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali.

Khan and Ali had pleaded to build a rational and modern Muslim middle-class in South Asia that would lead an intellectual and political movement to construct a distinct political and cultural identity for the Muslim minority of India.

But why were the AIML’s ideas in this regard being opposed by certain powerful Muslim groups?

JUH and radical groups like the Ahrar and the Khaksar believed that every Indian’s first goal should be independence from the British. They believed that Muslims of India were a significant minority (approximately 30per cent at the time) and (thus) would be in a position (after independence) to carve out a more powerful political, economic and cultural role for themselves in India.

They also claimed that AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was a construct based on the European idea of a nation-state and that Islam cannot be confined within the boundaries of nationalism.

AIML had performed poorly in most elections held in India’s Muslim-majority provinces. Bengal and Punjab contained the largest Muslim populations in undivided India. Though by the 1940s AIML had managed to make important inroads in Bengal, the party had been routed in Punjab in the elections held there in the 1930s.

In 1945 the British colonial government in India called for elections for the national and legislative assemblies. The election in the Punjab was to be held in February 1946.

The Congress’ aim was to win a majority in most provinces so it could press its claim to form a government of united (post-colonial) India. AIML’s goal was to win the polls in Muslim majority provinces so it could not only claim to be the largest Muslim party, but also assert its demand of carving out a separate Muslim nation-state from areas where the Muslims were in a majority.

The situation in the Punjab was tricky. Even though 57pc of Punjab’s population was Muslim, the AIML had badly lost the previous elections in the province.

Another defeat in the Punjab was guaranteed to deal a decisive blow to Jinnah and his party’s claims and demands.

The Congress understood this well and went all out to defeat the AIML in the Punjab.

The province was under the electoral dominance of the Unionists — a large outfit headed by Muslims belonging to the landed gentry and influential pirs (Muslim spiritual leaders). The party also had some Hindu and Sikh leaders.

In the last major election in the province (1937), the Unionists had won 95 seats (out of a total of 175). Congress had bagged 18 whereas the AIML had managed to win just one.

To guarantee another AIML thrashing in the Punjab, the Congress Party’s ace strategist, Sardar Patel, and the party’s leading Muslim leader, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, immediately went about constructing an airtight anti-AIML scenario.

The Congress, apart from contesting the election from its own platform (of Indian Nationalism), was also backing the Unionists in areas where the latter was expecting a tough fight from the AIML.

Apart from this, Patel dispatched a check of Rs50,000 (a hefty sum in those days) to Azad whose job it was to fund and co-ordinate anti-AIML Muslim groups such as the JUH, the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar.

The Ahrar and the Khaksar enjoyed support among Punjab’s Muslim petty-bourgeoisies. These two parties (along with JUH), provided the Congress with fiery clerics who went about denouncing the AIML as being a party of ‘British agents,’ and ‘fake Muslims’.

The powerful Unionist Party on the other hand claimed that it alone was the true representative of Punjab’s Muslim majority.

Jinnah, who had till then been repulsed by populist political tactics, got together with Punjab’s AIML President, Khan of Mamdot, to chalk out a strategy to counter the ruckus being raised by the Congress with the help of the Unionists, the Ahrar, the Khaskar, the JUH and the Sikh nationalist outfit, the Akali dal.

Jinnah and Mamdot first brought in hundreds of members of AIML’s student-wing, the All India Muslim Students Federation (AIMSF), from various parts of India. Also brought in were members of the AIMSF’s women’s wing.

College and university students (both male and female) belonging to the AIMSF were dispatched across the Punjab in groups and asked to hold small rallies in the cities, villages and towns of the province.

They were to explain AIML’s manifesto as a fight against economic exploitation and a struggle to create a separate Muslim nation-state where there will be economic benefits for all and religious harmony.

To counter the fiery denouncements being aired by members of the Ahrar, the Khaksar and the JUH, the AIML managed to win the support of a group of JUH leaders who had disagreed with their party’s policy of siding with the Congress and the Unionists.

Led by Islamic scholar, Alama Shabir Ahmad Usmani, this batch of JUH renegades successfully began to counter the theological arguments (against a separate Muslim nation-state) being leveled by the anti-AIML clerics and ulema.

The anti-AIML clerics had accused the AIML of ‘misguiding the Muslims of India’ and working to keep the Muslims under the influence of the forces of exploitation. The pro-AIML clerics counter-attacked by accusing the Ahrar and other such outfits of being Congress agents who were working to keep the Muslims ‘under the thumb of India’s Hindu majority.’

AIML was also armed with a rather radical manifesto. Largely authored by one of the leading members of the AIML’s leftist lobby — Danial Latifi (a committed Socialist) — the manifesto promised sweeping land reforms, religious harmony and an end to economic exploitation.

Another (last minute) attainment that Jinnah and his party managed to achieve was the support of the influential pirs of the province. Punjab’s pirs had for long been associated with the Unionist Party, but just as the elections drew near, many of them were convinced by the AIML leadership to switch sides and become part of the AIML.

The voter turnout was high on the day of the polls. The Unionists were expected to win the bulk of the seats, followed by the Congress.

But the results shocked the Congress and the Unionists. The AIML managed to win 73 seats (out of 175). The Unionists could only bag 20. The Congress won 51 and the Sikh Akali dal 22.

The Ahrar and the Khaksars failed to win even a single seat. The AIML bagged the largest share of the total Muslim vote (65pc). Just 19pc of the Muslim votes went to Ahrar and the Khaksars.

Though the Congress, the Unionists and the Akali dal managed to form a wobbly and short-lived coalition government in the Punjab, AIML finally managed to augment itself as India’s largest Muslim party.

It also did well in two other Muslim majority provinces. It won 113 (out of 230) seats in the Bengal and 27 (out of 60) in Sindh.

The results greatly accelerated the party’s demand for a separate Muslim nation-state, and after winning the provincial election in another Muslim-majority region, the NWFP (in early/mid-1947), the party finally managed to carve out Pakistan from the rest of India (August 1947).
The election that created Pakistan - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Its quite evident to "most" historians, even Islamist ones that Pakistan was born out of mere political struggle. Yet, its disgraceful that same people and parties stood by our military generals time and again against Pakistan's civil political forces.

Pakistan is NOT a product of some military struggle, hence our ever powerful defense establishment should stop interferring in its political affairs. Their job is at the border, not inside the capital. Take lessons from history and leave Pakistan's democratic forces alone.


@BDforever @Luffy 500 @idune @A.Rafay @Ahmad1996 @Akheilos @Armstrong @arushbhai @AstanoshKhan @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @balixd @batmannow @Bilal. @chauvunist @Crypto @Dr. Stranglove @Evil Flare @EyanKhan @Fahad Khan 2 @GIANTsasquatch @graphican @Green Arrow @Guleen Ahmed @HRK @Jazzbot @Junaid B @Jzaib @Khalidr @khawaja07 @Leader @Luftwaffe @Marshmallow @mr42O @Muhammad Omar @nomi007 @Pak123 @Pakistani shaheens @Pakistanisage @Peaceful Civilian @pkuser2k12 @Pukhtoon @PWFI @raazh @Rafael @Rashid Mahmood @RescueRanger @Saifkhan12 @Sedqal @SHAMK9 @Spy Master @Stealth @Strike X @SUPARCO @sur @syedali73 @Tameem @Tayyab1796 @Zarvan @waleed3601 @AdeelFaheem @Rajput_Pakistani @Men in Green @IceCold @LoveIcon @razahassan1997 @Dil Pakistan @asq @junaid hamza @Pukhtoon @jamahir @Strigon @Rafi @Ulla @HughSlaman @420canada @sathya @slapshot @raza_888 @hacsan @SBD-3 @cb4 @AsianUnion @Aether @Proudpakistaniguy @WishLivePak @Waffen SS @FaujHistorian @Fracker @Ranches @ghoul @Jf Thunder @GreenFalcon @genmirajborgza786 @orangzaib @Pakistani Exile @KURUMAYA @Irfan Baloch @ali_raza @Syed.Ali.Haider @dexter @Patriots @muslim_pakistani @W.11 @zaid butt @ajpirzada @Shoaib Rathore @OrionHunter @CHARGER @Major Sam @yesboss @TheNoob @Bratva @ghazaliy2k @Viny @StormShadow @suresh1773 @SOHEIL @venu309 @danish_vij @Force-India @faisal6309 @SpArK @S.U.R.B. @vsdave2302 @jarves @WAJsal @pursuit of happiness @Winchester @janon @pak-marine @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Donatello

It's pretty accurate but I wonder why it missed out the support Jamat e Ahmadiyya gave to AIML and Jinnah (rh)? Ahmadis actively campaigned for AIML. I am not saying this because I want to get some credit but only to point out that today the outfits that were against Pakistan creation actively persecute Ahmadis who were willing participants in the independence struggle.

AIML victory in some seats could just not have been possible without the aid of Ahmadi votes. I checked that the article is written by Nadeem F. Paracha, I am not sure why he missed out the role Ahmadis played.

Sardar Shaukat Hayat in his book “The Nation that lost its soul” (page 147) mentions the following event:

“One day, I got a message from Quaid e Azam saying ‘Shaukat, I believe you are going to Batala, which I understand is about five miles from Qadian, please go to Qadian and meet Hadhrat Sahib (Head of Jamaat e Ahmadiyya) and request him on my behalf for his blessings and support for Pakistan's cause.’ After the meeting (in Batala) I reached Qadian about midnight, I sent a word that I had brought a message from Quaid e Azam. He came down immediately and enquired what were Quaid's wishes. I conveyed his message for prayer and for his support for Pakistan. He said: ‘Please convey to the Quaid e Azam that we have been praying for his mission from the very beginning.’ Where the help of his followers is concerned, no Ahmadi will stand against any Muslim Leaguer.”
 
Aapne tag kyon nahi kiya mujhe?

I have a problem agreeing with the author especially because the source of these information/ insinuations has not been mentioned. I respect NFP, but would not accept everything he said. Some of this is his understanding of the history, does not make it a fact.

I think the picture was far more complex than what the author says, though he may have captured some part of truth in this.
 
Even till the early and mid-1940s, the leadership of the All India Muslim League (AIML) wasn’t quite sure exactly what its status was among the sizeable Muslim minority of India.

In 1944, AIML’s leading man and strategist, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while talking to reporters in Bombay (present-day Mumbai), was lamenting that even though his opponents in the Indian National Congress (INC) were doing much to undermine AIML’s influence among the region’s Muslims, more damage in this respect was being done by certain Muslim politicians and outfits.

536ef8e468207.jpg

Confessional religious parties like the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind (JUH), and radical right-wing outfits such as the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar Movement were staunchly against the concept of ‘Muslim Nationalism’ being propagated by Jinnah and his party.

AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was derived from the thoughts of various Muslim intellectuals. Most of them had been inspired by the writings of 19th Century Muslim scholars such as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali.

Khan and Ali had pleaded to build a rational and modern Muslim middle-class in South Asia that would lead an intellectual and political movement to construct a distinct political and cultural identity for the Muslim minority of India.

But why were the AIML’s ideas in this regard being opposed by certain powerful Muslim groups?

JUH and radical groups like the Ahrar and the Khaksar believed that every Indian’s first goal should be independence from the British. They believed that Muslims of India were a significant minority (approximately 30per cent at the time) and (thus) would be in a position (after independence) to carve out a more powerful political, economic and cultural role for themselves in India.

They also claimed that AIML’s Muslim Nationalism was a construct based on the European idea of a nation-state and that Islam cannot be confined within the boundaries of nationalism.

AIML had performed poorly in most elections held in India’s Muslim-majority provinces. Bengal and Punjab contained the largest Muslim populations in undivided India. Though by the 1940s AIML had managed to make important inroads in Bengal, the party had been routed in Punjab in the elections held there in the 1930s.

In 1945 the British colonial government in India called for elections for the national and legislative assemblies. The election in the Punjab was to be held in February 1946.

The Congress’ aim was to win a majority in most provinces so it could press its claim to form a government of united (post-colonial) India. AIML’s goal was to win the polls in Muslim majority provinces so it could not only claim to be the largest Muslim party, but also assert its demand of carving out a separate Muslim nation-state from areas where the Muslims were in a majority.

The situation in the Punjab was tricky. Even though 57pc of Punjab’s population was Muslim, the AIML had badly lost the previous elections in the province.

Another defeat in the Punjab was guaranteed to deal a decisive blow to Jinnah and his party’s claims and demands.

The Congress understood this well and went all out to defeat the AIML in the Punjab.

The province was under the electoral dominance of the Unionists — a large outfit headed by Muslims belonging to the landed gentry and influential pirs (Muslim spiritual leaders). The party also had some Hindu and Sikh leaders.

In the last major election in the province (1937), the Unionists had won 95 seats (out of a total of 175). Congress had bagged 18 whereas the AIML had managed to win just one.

To guarantee another AIML thrashing in the Punjab, the Congress Party’s ace strategist, Sardar Patel, and the party’s leading Muslim leader, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, immediately went about constructing an airtight anti-AIML scenario.

The Congress, apart from contesting the election from its own platform (of Indian Nationalism), was also backing the Unionists in areas where the latter was expecting a tough fight from the AIML.

Apart from this, Patel dispatched a check of Rs50,000 (a hefty sum in those days) to Azad whose job it was to fund and co-ordinate anti-AIML Muslim groups such as the JUH, the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Khaksar.

The Ahrar and the Khaksar enjoyed support among Punjab’s Muslim petty-bourgeoisies. These two parties (along with JUH), provided the Congress with fiery clerics who went about denouncing the AIML as being a party of ‘British agents,’ and ‘fake Muslims’.

The powerful Unionist Party on the other hand claimed that it alone was the true representative of Punjab’s Muslim majority.

Jinnah, who had till then been repulsed by populist political tactics, got together with Punjab’s AIML President, Khan of Mamdot, to chalk out a strategy to counter the ruckus being raised by the Congress with the help of the Unionists, the Ahrar, the Khaskar, the JUH and the Sikh nationalist outfit, the Akali dal.

Jinnah and Mamdot first brought in hundreds of members of AIML’s student-wing, the All India Muslim Students Federation (AIMSF), from various parts of India. Also brought in were members of the AIMSF’s women’s wing.

College and university students (both male and female) belonging to the AIMSF were dispatched across the Punjab in groups and asked to hold small rallies in the cities, villages and towns of the province.

They were to explain AIML’s manifesto as a fight against economic exploitation and a struggle to create a separate Muslim nation-state where there will be economic benefits for all and religious harmony.

To counter the fiery denouncements being aired by members of the Ahrar, the Khaksar and the JUH, the AIML managed to win the support of a group of JUH leaders who had disagreed with their party’s policy of siding with the Congress and the Unionists.

Led by Islamic scholar, Alama Shabir Ahmad Usmani, this batch of JUH renegades successfully began to counter the theological arguments (against a separate Muslim nation-state) being leveled by the anti-AIML clerics and ulema.

The anti-AIML clerics had accused the AIML of ‘misguiding the Muslims of India’ and working to keep the Muslims under the influence of the forces of exploitation. The pro-AIML clerics counter-attacked by accusing the Ahrar and other such outfits of being Congress agents who were working to keep the Muslims ‘under the thumb of India’s Hindu majority.’

AIML was also armed with a rather radical manifesto. Largely authored by one of the leading members of the AIML’s leftist lobby — Danial Latifi (a committed Socialist) — the manifesto promised sweeping land reforms, religious harmony and an end to economic exploitation.

Another (last minute) attainment that Jinnah and his party managed to achieve was the support of the influential pirs of the province. Punjab’s pirs had for long been associated with the Unionist Party, but just as the elections drew near, many of them were convinced by the AIML leadership to switch sides and become part of the AIML.

The voter turnout was high on the day of the polls. The Unionists were expected to win the bulk of the seats, followed by the Congress.

But the results shocked the Congress and the Unionists. The AIML managed to win 73 seats (out of 175). The Unionists could only bag 20. The Congress won 51 and the Sikh Akali dal 22.

The Ahrar and the Khaksars failed to win even a single seat. The AIML bagged the largest share of the total Muslim vote (65pc). Just 19pc of the Muslim votes went to Ahrar and the Khaksars.

Though the Congress, the Unionists and the Akali dal managed to form a wobbly and short-lived coalition government in the Punjab, AIML finally managed to augment itself as India’s largest Muslim party.

It also did well in two other Muslim majority provinces. It won 113 (out of 230) seats in the Bengal and 27 (out of 60) in Sindh.

The results greatly accelerated the party’s demand for a separate Muslim nation-state, and after winning the provincial election in another Muslim-majority region, the NWFP (in early/mid-1947), the party finally managed to carve out Pakistan from the rest of India (August 1947).
The election that created Pakistan - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Its quite evident to "most" historians, even Islamist ones that Pakistan was born out of mere political struggle. Yet, its disgraceful that same people and parties stood by our military generals time and again against Pakistan's civil political forces.

Pakistan is NOT a product of some military struggle, hence our ever powerful defense establishment should stop interferring in its political affairs. Their job is at the border, not inside the capital. Take lessons from history and leave Pakistan's democratic forces alone.


@BDforever @Luffy 500 @idune @A.Rafay @Ahmad1996 @Akheilos @Armstrong @arushbhai @AstanoshKhan @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @balixd @batmannow @Bilal. @chauvunist @Crypto @Dr. Stranglove @Evil Flare @EyanKhan @Fahad Khan 2 @GIANTsasquatch @graphican @Green Arrow @Guleen Ahmed @HRK @Jazzbot @Junaid B @Jzaib @Khalidr @khawaja07 @Leader @Luftwaffe @Marshmallow @mr42O @Muhammad Omar @nomi007 @Pak123 @Pakistani shaheens @Pakistanisage @Peaceful Civilian @pkuser2k12 @Pukhtoon @PWFI @raazh @Rafael @Rashid Mahmood @RescueRanger @Saifkhan12 @Sedqal @SHAMK9 @Spy Master @Stealth @Strike X @SUPARCO @sur @syedali73 @Tameem @Tayyab1796 @Zarvan @waleed3601 @AdeelFaheem @Rajput_Pakistani @Men in Green @IceCold @LoveIcon @razahassan1997 @Dil Pakistan @asq @junaid hamza @Pukhtoon @jamahir @Strigon @Rafi @Ulla @HughSlaman @420canada @sathya @slapshot @raza_888 @hacsan @SBD-3 @cb4 @AsianUnion @Aether @Proudpakistaniguy @WishLivePak @Waffen SS @FaujHistorian @Fracker @Ranches @ghoul @Jf Thunder @GreenFalcon @genmirajborgza786 @orangzaib @Pakistani Exile @KURUMAYA @Irfan Baloch @ali_raza @Syed.Ali.Haider @dexter @Patriots @muslim_pakistani @W.11 @zaid butt @ajpirzada @Shoaib Rathore @OrionHunter @CHARGER @Major Sam @yesboss @TheNoob @Bratva @ghazaliy2k @Viny @StormShadow @suresh1773 @SOHEIL @venu309 @danish_vij @Force-India @faisal6309 @SpArK @S.U.R.B. @vsdave2302 @jarves @WAJsal @pursuit of happiness @Winchester @janon @pak-marine @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Donatello

Loved reading this article, thank you very much for sharing this. :)
 
it is simple fact that division of india happened because of people like vallabh bhai patel refusing to accept the muslim jinnah as prime minister of india.

it is also true that neither the congress party nor the muslim league had a solution where the british system of parliament and constitution could have been avoided and instead a new progressive system developed, preferably guided by the socialists.

The military should be completely subservient to civilian authority, and exist only to deal with violent threats against the state machinery.

technically yes but the civilian authority should be a progressive socialist system... if the internal system is not progressive then the military should enact a overthrow of the government... if the military doesn't it is simply protecting an inhuman system and therefore loses its legitimacy.

some systems where enlightened elements the military helped overthrow capitalist/puppet governments are egypt, iraq, libya, russia, venezuela, even pakistan.
 
Well Pakistan become through a democratic way and its progress and prosperity is also link to the democracy.
 
technically yes but the civilian authority should be a progressive socialist system... if the internal system is not progressive then the military should enact a overthrow of the government... if the military doesn't it is simply protecting an inhuman system and therefore loses its legitimacy.

In other words, the military should overthrow any govt you don't approve of. Otherwise, "technically" they shouldn't.
 
In other words, the military should overthrow any govt you don't approve of. Otherwise, "technically" they shouldn't.

if the governance system is wrong then a obedient military will just be like any other profession, doing what the wrong government orders, carrying out operations against real freedoms lovers... and such militaries have always being allied with the western bloc.

if a military has military trained people, then those people should use their training to bring justice and real progress to its society and to ally with other militaries and groups in the world who too seek justice, freedoms, real progress.
 
BULLSEYE! That election was conducted under the administration of British Raj. When British left from here, so went 'free and fair' elections with them. It was only in 1970 that Pakistan managed to conduct free and fair elections accepted by all parties. Only it led to civil war and another partion of Pakistan when its defense establishment categorically REFUSED to hand-over power to the legitimate winner: Awami League from East Pakistan!

Are we forgetting something here? Refusal of Z A Bhutto?

I am totally for democracy but.....
Let's assume Pak Mil is absolutely subservient to Civillian Leaders. Civil Govt orders and they follow. What will become of military? Same as other civil institutions right? Like mmm....Police?! Like State bank...like national planning commision, WAPDA, ....list can go on! Do I need say any further?
 
Let's start by having Imran Khan being stopped from dragging the Army into politics when his silly stunts go wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom