Without the muhajirs, Pakistan would not exist

[W.11]

Read little bit of history - It was Hindus who were enjoying prosperity in east under British. While Muslims were being oppressed after fall of Mughal empire and after 1857 rebellion it deteriorated further. Social status of handful business elite or bureaucrats doesn't mean that Muslims were prospering there. On other hand Punjab was the last Indian state who fell to British, and after establishing rule British pacified Punjabies by laying network of canals and giving them lands, recruited them in Army.

Low Population of Indian Punjab doesn't change the fact that average Indian Punjabi is better off than average person from UP & Bihar. And people from UP & Bihar are migrating to Punjab to earn livelihood. Pakistan's Punjab fell little behind because it failed to create economic opportunities other than agriculture to match the population growth on time, we are catching up. But still Punjab is doing well than other provinces.

okay please provide me links to your history, punjab was the last to get conquered? i thought that it were KPK and balochistan

 

[Sugarcane]

okay please provide me links to your history, punjab was the last to get conquered? i thought that it were KPK and balochistan

From where you read history? Baluchistan was not conquered (except some part of Bloan pass was ceded to British), British had treaties with princely states of Baluchistan, nor was FATA & PATA under direct British rule. And rest of KPK was part of Punjab State.

@DESERT FIGHTER - recommend some books on history of Baluchistan for my friend.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Should have fought harder for full Punjab, mistake was that too much time was spent by MAJ in trying to maintain the union that by the time Brits were about to leave we had to take what we could. If MAJ had demanded Pakistan and nothing but from the beginning we would have had more time to argue for full Punjab.

It wasn't his fault. He could not have seen events unfold the way they did.

 

[W.11]

From where you read history? Baluchistan was not conquered (except some part of Bloan pass was ceded to British), British had treaties with princely states of Baluchistan, nor was FATA & PATA under direct British rule. And rest of KPK was part of Punjab State.

@DESERT FIGHTER - recommend some books on history of Baluchistan for my friend.

u r funny man

its the same thing

 

[Armstrong]

Very few people had Radio that time, MAJ was indeed popular in urban area and rural area near them but not in all Punjab as those people were busy in their day to day life and was not aware of what's happening in cities. But Pakistan movement got momentum when politicians of rural started joining Muslim league.

Janaaab aisiii bhi nahin baaat haiii; you should talk to some of the people who were alive at the time of the Partition - It was PTI's tsunami times 10 here in Punjab !

And the people of the rest of the Muslim minority & majority areas were busy in their day to day lives too !

There was indeed some ML and Unionist relations but they had deteriorated by the Quaid's Delhi Proposal ! (Punjab Politics, S. Qalb-i-Abid)

The people who joined the League weren't the top notch Unionists or the Landlord gentry as we think they were; they were, instead, people like Mian Iftikharuddin, the President of the Punjab Congress Party, who had to resign because he held the view that the Muslim's demanding Pakistan was their Democratic Right. Later he joined the ML ! (Fortnightly Report (henceforth FNR) 15 May 1942)

And we mustn't forget that Sir Sikandar Hiyat Tiwana presented his Punjab Formula but had to retract it because of the resounding support of the Muslim League amongst the Muslim Masses of Punjab ! (The Times (London), 5 November, 1942) (Information Ministry's Note, 31 December. L/I/l/875/ IOR)

Then later on Khizer Hiyat Tiwana who was the new leader of the Unionist Faction within the ML was found to be operating on an Anti-Pakistan agenda within the League was confronted and expelled. (Q. Abid Muslim Politics in the Punjab, p. 279) (F.N.R 30 May 1944)

At that time reports and predictions were circulating that the Muslim League was on the cusp of winning a huge number of votes because the League had the support of the Punjabi Muslims. (Viceroy to the Secretary of State, 12 August 1945, in Transfer of Power, 1942-47 (henceforth T.P.) edited by N. Mansergh, Vol. Vi, pp.58-59)

And so in the '46 Elections; the Unionists only managed to win 13 of the Muslim Seats while they were unseated from 57 others by the League !

It was estimated that now up to 90% of the employees of the Punjab Government supported the ML and even the Chief Secretary of Punjab, Akhtar Hussain, wasn't trusted by the Governor anymore. (Dawn, 9 February 1947, ibid, pp. 259-60)

Khizer was again appointed as the Chief Minister in '47 to stop Pakistan from happening but the people started agitating & Khizer was forced to resign later that year (Times of India, 3 March 1947)

In that period around 13000 Muslim League supporters had been put in Jail ! (Star of India, 7 February 1947)

So bhai sahib we weren't all illiterate of the politics of Punjab too busy to care either way; paihhhhn give credit where its due sadeiii bareii bureiii hunn aineiii we khachar nahin sann jivein tuseiii samajh raheiii ohhh !

@KingMamba @mafiya !

 

[Sugarcane]

Janaaab aisiii bhi nahin baaat haiii; you should talk to some of the people who were alive at the time of the Partition - It was PTI's tsunami times 10 here in Punjab !

And the people of the rest of the Muslim minority & majority areas were busy in their day to day lives too !

There was indeed some ML and Unionist relations but they had deteriorated by the Quaid's Delhi Proposal ! (Punjab Politics, S. Qalb-i-Abid)

The people who joined the League weren't the top notch Unionists or the Landlord gentry as we think they were; they were, instead, people like Mian Iftikharuddin, the President of the Punjab Congress Party, who had to resign because he held the view that the Muslim's demanding Pakistan was their Democratic Right. Later he joined the ML ! (Fortnightly Report (henceforth FNR) 15 May 1942)

And we mustn't forget that Sir Sikandar Hiyat Tiwana presented his Punjab Formula but had to retract it because of the resounding support of the Muslim League amongst the Muslim Masses of Punjab ! (The Times (London), 5 November, 1942) (Information Ministry's Note, 31 December. L/I/l/875/ IOR)

Then later on Khizer Hiyat Tiwana who was the new leader of the Unionist Faction within the ML was found to be operating on an Anti-Pakistan agenda within the League was confronted and expelled. (Q. Abid Muslim Politics in the Punjab, p. 279) (F.N.R 30 May 1944)

At that time reports and predictions were circulating that the Muslim League was on the cusp of winning a huge number of votes because the League had the support of the Punjabi Muslims. (Viceroy to the Secretary of State, 12 August 1945, in Transfer of Power, 1942-47 (henceforth T.P.) edited by N. Mansergh, Vol. Vi, pp.58-59)

And so in the '46 Elections; the Unionists only managed to win 13 of the Muslim Seats while they were unseated from 57 others by the League !

It was estimated that now up to 90% of the employees of the Punjab Government supported the ML and even the Chief Secretary of Punjab, Akhtar Hussain, wasn't trusted by the Governor anymore. (Dawn, 9 February 1947, ibid, pp. 259-60)

Khizer was again appointed as the Chief Minister in '47 to stop Pakistan from happening but the people started agitating & Khizer was forced to resign later that year (Times of India, 3 March 1947)

In that period around 13000 Muslim League supporters had been put in Jail ! (Star of India, 7 February 1947)

So bhai sahib we weren't all illiterate of the politics of Punjab too busy to care either way; paihhhhn give credit where its due sadeiii bareii bureiii hunn aineiii we khachar nahin sann jivein tuseiii samajh raheiii ohhh !

@KingMamba @mafiya !

Butt sahib - etna emotional na hon, ap ki baat maan laita hoon.

 

[SQ8]

In truth, Without Bengalis.. Pakistan would not exist.
Punjab was a Unionist State, KPK was Congress... Sindh was 50/50.. and the Balochis were all tribal.
It was the Bengal vote that made Pakistan, and then what did the so called "sons of soil" do to them?

The inhabitants of this country deserve every bit( and more) misery that they reap today.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Great another one of those ethnic thread.

In truth, Without Bengalis.. Pakistan would not exist.
Punjab was a Unionist State, KPK was Congress... Sindh was 50/50.. and the Balochis were all tribal.
It was the Bengal vote that made Pakistan, and then what did the so called "sons of soil" do to them?

The inhabitants of this country deserve every bit( and more) misery that they reap today.

That's actually true if Bengalis hadn't voted in huge favour we might have had huge difficulties demanding Pakistan from the British.

Thank You @BDforever .

 

[third eye]

In truth, Without Bengalis.. Pakistan would not exist.
Punjab was a Unionist State, KPK was Congress... Sindh was 50/50.. and the Balochis were all tribal.
It was the Bengal vote that made Pakistan, and then what did the so called "sons of soil" do to them?

The inhabitants of this country deserve every bit( and more) misery that they reap today.

I wonder how many posters here are aware of these facts.

Thanks for highlighting this.

 

[Armstrong]

In truth, Without Bengalis.. Pakistan would not exist.
Punjab was a Unionist State, KPK was Congress... Sindh was 50/50.. and the Balochis were all tribal.
It was the Bengal vote that made Pakistan, and then what did the so called "sons of soil" do to them?

The inhabitants of this country deserve every bit( and more) misery that they reap today.

Aaargghhh in the '46 Elections the ML won 87% of the Muslim Vote in the Punjab !

And the KP elections weren't representative of the will of the People hence why a Referendum occurred there !

British Baluchistan voted for Pakistan through their Representatives as did Tribal Baluchistan through their Jirga; Kalat State was the only exception to this as it was internally divided on the issue !

I don't know much about Sindh !

So it wasn't about the Bengalis only or even the Bengalis primarily !

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Without Unionist Party of Punjab's support for Muslim league, there wouldn't have been any Pakistan to begin with or at max east Bengal would have been separated - And it's Punjabis who paid most price for supporting division.

dude unionist party was an ally of the congress party they supported united India, heck its a known fact that Nehru had strong ties with the unionist party in fact congress was quite strong in Peshawar & Lahore up till the 1946 ! while it was weak among the Muslim constituencies in Bihar, Bengal , U.P & Hyderabad Deccan, that's why even after partition, these unionist kept on the pressure on Muslim league the demand for a native chief of army staff was just one of the many pressure points they had used for which liaqat ali khan appointed ayub khan, & he in returned literally killed the original Muslim league, not to mention the disrespectful treatment & systematic isolation of Fatima Jinnah, these are a historical fact

 

[Multani]

Without the Muhajirs, Pakistan would not exist | MQM History​

May 22, 2014 · by MQM History · in Uncategorized. ·

The 1937 All-India Constituent Assembly Election results are key to understanding the internal ethnolinguistic dynamics of Pakistan since independence. The May 2013 Pakistan Election results were a near exact mirror of the 1937 results, with Punjab, Sindh (rural), NWFP/KPK and the Muhajir-majority areas each being won almost exclusively by a different party. It would be as if Canada were divided into 4 provinces (French-speaking, English-speaking, and 2 distinct Native American zones), and then each Canadian province’s seats were won entirely by the party representing that ethnolinguistic group. In 1937, the Punjabis, Sindhis and Punjabis rejected the “Muhajir” AIML. Jinnah won in India’s UP and elsewhere (with AIML second only to Congress in India overall), yet received almost absolute rejection in present-day Pakistan. This historical reality is the basis for the current persecution of the Muhajirs in Pakistan, who have given overwhelming support to the MQM as a result.

Christine Fair, a fluent Urdu-speaking Professor at Georgetown University (Washington DC), wrote an article which stimulated broad discussion on the 1937 elections. Whilst I agree with many of Professor Fair’s observations of Pakistan’s current militant threat and security situation, her historical description of Pakistan’s genesis misconstrues the true motivations of the Muhajirs for the creation of the state.

Dr. Fair views Pakistan as a near-failed state. Since independence, the promise of the (Muhajir) All-India Muslim League of a secular and tolerant Pakistan has been violated. Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis were persecuted viciously since the inception of the state. Successive military dictatorships have fought a series of disastrous wars which bankrupted the country and created mistrust in the eyes of the world. Jihadis have established militant madrassahs all over the country, including many in the heart of Islamabad. More recently, the conduct of the Pakistani state in the War on Terror has been questioned by many.

https://twitter.com/x/status/468808774560407553

Dr Fair seemingly considers the very notion of the Two Nation Theory to be invalid

However, these failures of Pakistan were not due to the Two Nation Theory (2NT) itself. Rather they were due to the fact that the liberal, secular and Muhajir-led AIML was eclipsed after independence by illiberal Punjabis and Sindhis.

The 2NT genesis lies in the Mughal areas of India (as opposed to Punjab/Sindh/NWFP), which were shattered after the final collapse of the Mughal Empire in 1857. From the late 19th century, middle-class Muslims were articulating their fears of being swamped by the better educated majority Hindu community in a unified India. This 1893 letter from a Muslim in Datavli (near Aligarh) articulates the Muhajir manifesto for Pakistan in its entirety.

Dr. Fair is welcome to ask almost any question relating to foreign policy, gender, social equality, economics, or education and I would be happy to discuss the differences in outlook between the Indian Muslim (Muhajir) community and the Hindu community. This difference in outlook led us to view ourselves as a distinct nation and seek independence in our own state. Who’s right and who’s wrong is another matter altogether – the point is that we have the right to define ourselves as a nation. That is our prerogative whether others agree or not.

I presume Dr. Fair does not doubt the legitimacy of the Two Nation Theory as espoused by Ireland (divided by 2NT in 1922), Yugoslavia (divided into 7 Nations), Scotland (scheduled to hold a 2NT referendum in September), Czechoslovakia (divided by 2NT in 1993), Indonesia/E.Timor (divided by 2NT in 2002), and many other examples. We Muhajirs expressed our desire to view ourselves as a separate nation by democratic mandate.

Dr Fair is based in Washington DC, so it may be worthwhile for her to explain her opinion regarding the validity of the 2NT relating to the separation of the North American Crown Colonies, which declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1776. The first formal acts of rebellion against the UK Government began in 1774 when the Patriot Suffolk Resolves abolished the UK Government authority in theProvince of Massachusetts Bay. So if Dr Fair suggests that “the idea that the [India/Pakistan] Two Nation Theory ineluctably meant partition is flawed”, at what stage does she consider the revolt of the American settlers against the British “ineluctably” meant partition of the North American Crown Colonies from Britain? The 1765 formation of the Sons of Liberty? The 1770 Boston riots? The 1773 Boston Tea Party? On what grounds were the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant American settlers entitled to seek independence from the British, yet Indian Muslims not entitled to seek separation from the Hindus, given that India was in effect a country without direct precedent, created by the British Empire?

Contrary to Dr. Fair’s assertion that “In the 1937 elections, the AIML suffered a thrashing”, in fact the AIML (106 seats) emerged from the 1937 elections as the 2nd biggest all-India party after Congress (707 seats) – hardly a thrashing! The Muslims in the “Muhajir” areas of India voted for AIML. Excluding independents, no other Muslim party came close. However, in present-day Pakistan, the “Muhajir” dominated AIML did indeed receive a thrashing. The Punjabis, Sindhis, and Pathans hated the “Muhajir” AIML, and AIML/Jinnah won only 2 out of 285 seats! (Both the seats were won by Ahmadis, one of whom was Zafrullah. When the Muhajir-dominated AIML formed Pakistan’s first government, Zafrullah was appointed Foreign Minister. Mandal, a Hindu, was appointed Law Minister. Sadly this would be unthinkable today).


At independence, Muhajir AIML appointed Mandal (Hindu) as Law Minister and Zafrullah (Ahmadi) as Foreign Secretary

The AIML was founded in Lucknow in 1906 by a group of Indian Muslims. The first President was Aga Khan III, an Old Etonian and graduate of Cambridge University, who led a historic delegation to Lord Minto (Viceroy) which established the principle of separate Hindu/Muslim electorates. Jinnah, a pork-eating and alcohol-drinking unobservant Ismaili Shia Muslim lawyer from Bombay, joined AIML in 1920. The AIML existed only because of the support of millions of “Muhajirs”.


Aga Khan III, the first President of the All-India Muslim League

Dr. Fair seems to think the Muhajir urge for independence accidentally created Pakistan. This is a flawed view of history – the Irish revolts against absentee English landlords didn’t ineluctably lead to partition, neither did Tito’s death ineluctably lead to the partition of Yugoslavia. The Zionist leadership was also rather vague as to what it implied by a desire for a “national homeland” until well into the British Mandate. In each of these cases, the centrifugal dynamics governing relations between these areas’ constituent groups led to separation. The Irish did not need to state from the outset that they were intent on separation, but the seeds of separation are clearly visible with hindsight. In the UK , the 1914 Irish Home Rule Act (postponed due to the War) would have devolved local government to Ireland and kept it in the UK. Is the Irish Republic invalid simply because the act didn’t pass and the Irish pushed on for full independence? “Muhajir” Muslims would have remained in India only under terms which were utterly unacceptable to Congress, which means that partition was inevitable with hindsight.

Dr. Fair’s argument that partition was a random accident negates the movement of the Muslims of present-day India to educate themselves and organise as a distinct political unit decades before independence. India’s history (invasions, languages, religions, empires) is more complicated than that of, for example, Ireland. The “accidental partition” theory is a bit like someone arguing that George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an accident by citing some prior statements made by him suggesting that he did not wish to invade Iraq.

The motivations of Punjab and Sindh in creating Pakistan were different to the Muhajirs. The AIML received almost zero support in Punjab/Sindh/NWFP in 1937 for precisely the same reason that MQM receives almost zero support in these areas today. The AIML’s secular, liberal, educated, tolerant, middle-class outlook was utterly rejected by these areas.

Punjab joined Jinnah’s AIML after 1937 for 2 reasons: economics and religion. Almost all the land in Punjab was owned by Sikhs (with much by Hindus). The Punjabi Muslims realised that if they could expel the Sikhs and Hindus from Punjab, they would be able to seize all that rich farmland for free. And that is precisely what happened. Also, the Punjabi Muslims and Sikhs held a deep mutual hatred going back to the Sikh-ruled Punjab era (early 1700s to British annexation in 1849). The Punjabi Muslims were treated very harshly (although the Sikhs would argue that they had been mistreated before). Punjabi Muslims held almost no land, no political power, no wealth, were severely punished even for cow eating (death or cutting off ears and noses), Multan was razed to the ground several times by the Sikhs before annexation, and countless other brutalities.


Before annexing Multan in 1819, the Sikhs used to raze it to the ground every year so they could claim massive tribute without resistance

At partition, Sikhs were cleared from (Pakistan) Punjab and Sikh lands occupied by Muslims.


Punjabi Muslims seized Sikh lands for free

Even Imran Khan’s family neighbourhood (Zaman Park) was seized as evacuee property by his uncle, Lt. Gen. Wajid Ali Burki (nicknamed “The Allotmentee”). Burki was famous for grabbing as many evacuee properties as he could, and owned a vast estate in Murree (hill station).


General Burki (Imran Khan’s uncle) was Acting President when Ayub travelled abroad

Punjabi Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs held a visceral animosity towards one another, and this was manifested in the Punjab Holocaust of 1947.

Many Punjabi Mullahs were against Pakistan’s creation, but only because they feared the secular and tolerant state the Muhajir AIML was planning to create. Yet many Punjabi Mullahs did support Pakistan, because they saw the opportunity to create an Islamist state by expelling the Sikhs, Hindus and Ahmadis. To this day, Pakistan’s foreign policy is dominated by Punjabis and can only be understood via the prism of Punjab’s historic internecine strife.

The Sindhis joined Pakistan for purely economic reasons. They hated the Muhajir AIML and rejected Jinnah in 1937 elections (0/60 seats). However, the economy of Sindh was then under the total control of Sindhi Hindus. From the Sindhi landlords down to the Sindhi peasant, all owed money to the Sindhi bania (moneylender).


Sindhi Hindus had a monopoly on finance and commerce in Sindh

The Sindhi Muslims were 97.5% illiterate (in Sindhi language), and more than 99.5% illiterate in English. After 1937, the Sindhi landlords realised that, if they created Pakistan and expelled the Hindus, their debts would be cleared and they would be undisputed masters of Sindh. The Sindhi peasants were also happy for their debts to be cleared.


1936 – Almost total illiteracy in Sindh

Immediately after partition, the Punjabis and Sindhis rejected the authority of (Muhajir) Jinnah and the AIML. The Punjab Provincial government resigned en masse and instigate widespread protests against Jinnah. The Sindhis hated Jinnah because he separated Karachi from Sindh in order to enable the Muhajirs to create a sensible, balanced administration in which gun crime was almost unheard of. (Z.A. Bhutto reintegrated Karachi into Sindh in 1971, replaced Muhajirs with Sindhis in Karachi police, nationalised Muhajir tycoons’ businesses, and the rot set in).


Right after independence, Punjabi and Sindhis rebelled against Jinnah’s authority

Without Jinnah, there would be no Pakistan. Without the Muhajir supporters of All-India Muslim League in 1937, there would be no Jinnah. Without Muhajirs, there would be no Pakistan.

Today, the MQM party is the last remaining political trace of the mighty Mughal Empire. We are the descendants of the AIML voters of 1937, the most dedicated of Jinnah’s supporters when he received a complete thrashing in Punjab, Sindh and NWFP. We are a secular tolerant party in which discrimination based on creed is unthinkable. There has never been a Muhajir suicide bomber; we are unwaveringly opposed to Jihadi and sectarian terrorists; Altaf Hussain has written in favour of gay rights; we have near 100% literacy; we reject Communist thought in all its manifestations; and we will never yield to the dark forces which threaten us.

I appeal to American liberals such as Dr. Fair to have more sympathy for the plight of MQM Muhajirs. Our forebears’ desire to create an independent state was justified by democratic mandate, no less than the many other similar examples around the world. If Dr. Fair and others have issues with Pakistan since independence, not only is it not our fault, we are the biggest victims. Rather than associating MQM Muhajirs with the dark forces operating in Pakistan, I would advise Dr. Fair to look for our commonalities. She will not need to look far.

I have a question for the MQM racists.

There are 4 crore Muhajirs in Punjab, twice as much as in Sindh. Why hasn't there been any "muhajir muhajir" in Punjab??

There are words used in Punjab like local and non-local, or Rohtaki, or Meo, or East Punjabi, or Jammuite or Kashmiri or Rajasthani but not really Muhajir, like racist MQM uses in Sindh.

The Muslims who migrated from india to Pakistan are the best Pakistanis because they gave the most sacrifices for the country. And without their efforts, Pakistan would certainly not exist.

 

[Sugarcane]

dude unionist party was an ally of the congress party they supported united India, heck its a known fact that Nehru had strong ties with the unionist party in fact congress was quite strong in Peshawar & Lahore up till the 1946 ! while it was weak among the Muslim constituencies in Bihar, Bengal , U.P & Hyderabad Deccan, that's why even after partition, these unionist kept on the pressure on Muslim league the demand for a native chief of army staff was just one of the many pressure points they had used for which liaqat ali khan appointed ayub khan, & he in returned literally killed the original Muslim league, not to mention the disrespectful treatment & systematic isolation of Fatima Jinnah, these are a historical fact

What i meant was support by members of unionist party (who joined Muslim league) not party itself.

 

[Armstrong]

What i meant was support by members of unionist party (who joined Muslim league) not party itself.

As I pointed out - the Big Boys still stayed behind in the Unionist Party !

Abbb busss kar deiiin....hamareiii aba-o-ajdad key rooh ko sukoon seh rehneiii dein !

Warnaa aaap kay subbb poool Bhabi keh samneii khol duun gaa !

 

[SQ8]

Aaargghhh in the '46 Elections the ML won 87% of the Muslim Vote in the Punjab !

And the KP elections weren't representative of the will of the People hence why a Referendum occurred there !

British Baluchistan voted for Pakistan through their Representatives as did Tribal Baluchistan through their Jirga; Kalat State was the only exception to this as it was internally divided on the issue !

I don't know much about Sindh !

So it wasn't about the Bengalis only or even the Bengalis primarily !

The Punjab Elite and Bureaucracy was all pro unionist who were essentially opportunist out for power.. the others who were mostly feudal factions who decided to keep quiet to save their own political skins. What saved the day was the Muslim Students Federation..

It is this very leadership is manipulated politics later on in Pakistan.. leading to our ruin. All the Muhajirs did was provide the Bureaucracy and try to stick to power centres which suited them. Sure they ran Pakistan, but essentially were opportunistic suckups when it came to whoever was in power.