What's new

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

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.
The problem in this case is precisely that they have not been verified.

It is also a problem that neither Dr. Jalal, nor Dr. Ahmed, have been asked directly to confirm this, as a special case, as the document is creating so much strife and disagreement. Agreed, it is not possible for every citation to be repeatedly confirmed by the person making the citation. Still, in these peculiar circumstances, perhaps that one extra step was necessary.

Lastly, whether or not @M. Sarmad believes in the document is irrelevant. He is not making any claim. He is merely saying that he wishes to see the claims corroborated. That is within his rights, and citing someone else's
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.
Sir, let us await events. I fear you are getting deeply moved by the situation, and that is not needed. We can shortly find out what is what. Let us give it a break. Above all, let us respect each other personally.
 
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.

Religion was not a significant factor yet 99 percent of the turnout voted for Pakistan, a proposed country based on protection of right of Muslims found in minority?

Political dynamics of NWFP were not very different from other administrative areas. If NWFP had Pashtunwali or Taburwali, Punjab, Bengal, Kashmir and UP also had their own Biraadri and caste fault lines.
 
It is also a problem that neither Dr. Jalal, nor Dr. Ahmed, have been asked directly to confirm this, as a special case, as the document is creating so much strife and disagreement.

Sir, had this claim been made by a recognized and experienced historian like Ayesha Jalal, it would undoubtedly carry much more weight. Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, on the other hand, does not specialize in history, so her expertise and knowledge in this area may be limited. When it comes to historical accounts related to Jinnah, YLH is much more credible. But still, I believe that we should not outright reject or accept Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa's claim and instead attempt to verify it first. I fail to understand why @Ssan sahib has an issue with that approach.
 
Last edited:
...a proposed country based on protection of right of Muslims found in minority?


The idea of Hindu domination was laughable to the Pashtuns, so this approach had little appeal in their areas.
 
Sir, had this claim been made by a recognized and experienced historian like Ayesha Jalal, it would undoubtedly carry much more weight. Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, on the other hand, does not specialize in history, so her expertise and knowledge in this area may be limited. When it comes to historical accounts related to Jinnah, YLH is much more credible. But still, I believe that we should not outright reject or accept Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa's claim and instead attempt to verify it first. I fail to understand why @Ssan sahib has an issue with that approach.
I was, first, misled by references to Dr. Ayesha, to think of Professor Jalal, who is in a different level altogether. Although she has suffered professionally because of the illwill of other south Asian teachers of history at her own institution and those similar (meaning, US universities), she still remains far above the common herd.

Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa has her own claims to respect and prestige, given her analysis of the Pakistan Army's business ramifications. However, outside that specialists area, she cannot be considered to be that class of historical authority whose word must sweep all before her.

Under the circumstances, verification is the need of the hour.
 
@Joe Shearer

You guys can proceed with verification no doubt. However, as far as providing evidence, what I have provided is more than enough. It is in the same league, like I said, of anyone else, citing any other archival material, for example the Jinnah papers.

So for example, if one was to have a problem with someone quoting Jinnah papers, he could of course, take the extra step of stepping into the Pakistani archives and verifying the existence of said document, ie that there were no transcribing errors, association errors, misrepresentation errors, etc. This would be a much more painful task than stepping into the British archives because quite frankly our archives are mismanaged. But theoretically verification would be possible.

That would be fine and well within their right. But that would not stop the conversation and certainly the person who had the problem could not say that this or that has not been proved. Yes, it has. That’s the standard we use in these debates. If you have a problem with that, well, let me tell you, you ought to have a problem with literally every other claim too. And more so with everything that is stored in the Pakistani archives.

The problem with having a debate about the standing of historians or academics is the following and even apparent in your interaction with Sarmad. You value Ayesha Jalal more than Siddiqa, fair enough, I would probably agree. However, I value Dr Ishtiaq far more than the other two. At least based on objective assessment of his placement in academia, he is at a more prestigious position. What do you mean by objective then? We would go down that rabbit hole. It’s futile.

You may disagree, but the point of judging peoples reputation still stands. At best it’s subjective. At some point, the questioning becomes frankly clownish. Ofc, I understand why we should verify this and create a digital copy. That’s a great idea. But let’s not gaslight each other either. And claim “it is up to ssan to prove the claim”. It is most assuredly not. What I have provided suffices. You can verify it for yourself if you have an issue with it.

Anyways I’ll be out for the next week on interviews. I’ll check in next week to see if we have gotten verification
 
Last edited:
@Joe Shearer

You guys can proceed with verification no doubt. However, as far as providing evidence, what I have provided is more than enough. It is in the same league, like I said, of anyone else, citing any other archival material, for example the Jinnah papers.


My friend, the debate at the moment is not about whether the British archives are more or less authentic than the Pakistani archives, but rather about whether the purported letter actually exists in the British archives and says exactly what is being claimed.

You say that the letter exists because Dr. Ayesha and Ishtiaq Lahori say so. However, we say that the letter may or may not exist, and that simply taking someone's word for it is not enough to establish its authenticity. Since the letter is said to be in the British archives, it should be possible to verify its existence, and this is expected to happen soon.

I have written to Ayesha Jalal, Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, and Ishtiaq Lahori regarding this letter. So far, only Ayesha Jalal has responded. I will post further details if and when the other two respond.
 
The idea of Hindu domination was laughable to the Pashtuns, so this approach had little appeal in their areas.

Did you deduce this after studying the economic infrastructure of NWFP?
 
Did you deduce this after studying the economic infrastructure of NWFP?

I am only quoting the then NWFP governor, Sir George Cunningham. In his diary, the governor has quoted Pir Baksh as saying that "for the average Pathan villager, a suggestion of Hindu domination was only laughable."
 
Why aren't these scholar's supporting Jinnah's Pakistan anymore? Why aren't they following there forefathers?

why aren't they speaking about human rights and condemning the actions of the current government?
 
I am only quoting the then NWFP governor, Sir George Cunningham. In his diary, the governor has quoted Pir Baksh as saying that "for the average Pathan villager, a suggestion of Hindu domination was only laughable."

In what context is he being quoted here?
 
In what context is he being quoted here?

In the context of the 1946 elections, Cunningham, the then governor of NWFP, documented the reasons behind the Muslim League's defeat against the Congress in those elections in his diary, and his diary is being quoted here
 
** Army /FAUJ is beneficiary since 1948 on all the power and perks ,Pakistan was run , with temporary constitutions and , power remained in hand of men with guns , (call them FAUJ) indirectly , harassing and silencing Political leaders like Fatima Jinnah - Mujib , and Now Imran Khan. Army benefitted from this "Lack of Constitution" and they later supported , lack of implementation of rule of law in country to keep their indirect control over wealth


India comparatively got their constitution and Republic setup much rapidly

We Pakistani inherited these GENERALs


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 ? A random Afghan came into middle of Army troops and killed Liaqat Ali

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


Pakistan Army was servant to British Rule , and they helped run the region called Pakistan after Partition it they decided to keep their "POWERS" over people and resources of Pakistan , and started to meddle in constitution creation and refused to accept civilians are leaders of country

Their little "Selection Process" is same process since British Era to consolidate power in their own inner circle hands


Who was beneficiary ? Just ask this question and answer will aways be same "Army / FAUJ"
 
Last edited:
All accounts means verifiable accounts, not self-praise by an interested party.

Where do you dig up these creatures?

No, don't answer, I can sense that your answer will be bruising, and that I will be told that they come from the same cesspool as Hindutvavadi distortion artists, who are bent on a mirror-image campaign of composing their own history.

How I wish it were possible to lock up this assortment of foul-mouthed bottom-feeders from both sides into an enclosed space for them to kill each other, so that there would be a sharply limited number left at the end to euthanise.
lol.

an intellectually dishonest person is calling others foul mouthed. what a hypocrite. your ignorance was proved when you tried to couple maudoodi with others. when called out you responded with a negative rating, and had nothing to contribute other than your own rants and claims.

had they played no role, there was no reason for the Quaid to ask them to hoist the flags in dhaka and in karachi. if they had no role to play, and were insignificant, the ML would have never asked them to issue fatwas in its favor. why ask an insignificant minority for support?

the last part applies to you as well.
 
Last edited:
Needless to say, the entire religious establishment regardless of their sectarian affiliations vehemently opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan movement
just another claim like the one that JUI ones were insignificant with nothing to back it up.
 

Back
Top Bottom