From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:32:40 GMT

In article <aftab.724360807@nsisrv>, aftab@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Aftab
Ahmad;MU-SPIN/CESDIS) writes:
> 
> 
> 	Syed Irfan Hyder writes:
> Fro here...
> ===============================================================
> Assalaam Alikum
>         In India what was called the two-nation theory only dawned on
> its proponents when they found all their efforts at reconcilliation
> futile. Note that these people (mostly educated from Aligarh) were
> from the generation that broke away from the mainly orthodox Muslim
> ulema camp after the war of independence, 1857. These were Sir Syed
> and his followers like Ali Brothers and others __ all from ALigarh.
> At the start of the 20th century and when the breakaway from the
> orthodox ulema had gone on about a generation or two, these people
> took the reins of Muslim leadership. (Ulemas now confined to their
> khaniqahs and madrassahs). Inspite of the efforts of Mohammad Ali
> Jinnah, SIrojni Naidu, Dada bhoy nauroji, Aga Khan, Salimullah
> in the first quarter of ths century, the elusive dream of
> Hindu-muslim unity never materialized. It was only after the
> noncooperation movement failure (early 20s), followed by the
> shock of disillusionment sent by the secularization and
> non-Islamic policies of Ata Turk, and closely followed
  ^^^^^^^^^^^
> by the Hindu Muslim riots, this liberal camp of Muslim leaders
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Dont you see a contradiction ? The leaders wanted a united India
but as an "Islamic state". Any guess why riots then took place
so easily in later years? 





> like Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Zafar ali khan, Hasrat Mohani, Jinnah
> and others realized that their way was indeed separate from
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Exactly. They realised that what they wanted was an Islamic state.
Hindu-Muslim unity was the last thing on their minds.




> that of Hindus. A realization that the orthodox ulema believed
> from long ago, but by now out of the mainstream because of
> their boycott of the English language.
> 
> Note that Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Sajjad hyder Yeldrum and all of
> their collegues at that time were so much under the spell of
> Ata Turk that his blatant steps really threw all of them out
> of the mainstream of the leadership. They all faded away as
> the stage was then taken over by the more youthful camp.
> 
> So, the thesis of all this discussion is that the idea of
> Two nation theory actually was a new one for those Muslims
> of India who were raised in the tradition of ALigarh. As for
> the Muslim ulemas, it has never been a new one. It was neither
> adopted or practiced by the Aligarian generation (if I may call that)
> for the first time. It may be dawned on them at that time.
> 



Funny isn't it?  There's no mention at all of the *will* of the 98% of the
muslims who were unable to enter this select club of Aligarh-ians or that of the
ulema. All their decisions were being made by these "great muslim thinkers".




> Otherwise any one who has read Quran, and knows a little
> Arabic, clearly understands the meaning of the:
> 
> Indeed we have made you the nation of the straight path!



So what is to blame ?



> 
> Wassalaam
> 
> Irfan Hyder
> P.S.
> 
> Ignore the typos.
> 
> until here...
> ==================================================================
> 	Given your point of view it becomes imperative for the Muslim
> ulmas to conform to the struggle for an independent country. But what
> we see is a different attitude. Assuming that the "liberals" (that's what
> you call) gave up before Hindu-Muslim differences: it means in other words
they
> joined hands with the spiritual heads as far as the two-nation theory
> goes, where were they (ulemas) at the time of movement. I see Ahmadies for
> the creation of pakistan and Jamaat-e-Islami against it. This is a big
> contradiction in your theory. Or would you say that the creation of Pakistan
> has nothing to do with the two-nation theory.
> 	Let me explain my view here. Creation of Pakistan was not a relgious
> issue at all. It was a human rights' issue. Muslims felt threatened by a 
> Hindu majority, espcially after ruling them for a long time. 




Perhaps this was a perception among many muslims who left for Pakistan. But 
a larger number stayed behind. So where does that leave the argument of the two
nation theory.





> 	It is absolutely necessary to understand th creation of Pakistan
> because the exploitation during Bhutto, Zia era were not implementng
> any idealogy - because there s none - they were in a situation where they
> were stuck because of absence of the concept of transfer of power.
> 	And to support my argument, we lost East Pakistan only because
> we could not give them their 'rights', and not because they or we changed
> the religion.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> aftab [Will fight against war]	ahmad 
> 




The events which lead to the creation of Bangladesh leaves no doubtin my mind
about the failure of this crazy concept of the "nation of the straight path".


--Javed.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan