Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

  1. #1
    Senior Member Maripat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Source of Breeze

    Default Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    This brother seems to have done a good job.

    Retrieving the Forgotten History :

    -Syed Naseer Ahamed

    The Role of Muslims in India's struggle for independence is glorious
    episode in the history of India. It represents the valor, sacrifice
    and patriotism of Indians. The movement lasted for about a century.
    In this historic struggle Muslims did play a definite role, shared
    the responsibility of liberating India from the yokes of British
    imperialism with Hindu brethren, underwent untold sufferings, made
    great sacrifices and thus served the country commendably

    The Forgotten history of the sacrifice of Muslims

    The divide and rule policy adopted by the British to
    consolidate and perpetuate their power in India, the circumstances
    that led to the partition of British India and the gruesome communal
    riots that erupted eventually broke the unity of Indian people, who
    otherwise fought united against the British. The wars with Pakistan,
    and communal disturbances did bring in mental barriers between Hindus
    and Muslims. The communal fanatics from both sides and particularly
    the Hinduthva forces readily used this perturbing situation
    successfully to further widen the gulf.

    History written with certain prejudices and improper
    perspectives and particularly the ` nationalistic ` way of history
    writing contributed towards the development of communal mindset.
    Literature produced with a communal bias played a destructive role in
    devastating a secular framework of thought. Popular perceptions are
    also carved with a parochial view. All these blamed Muslims and
    unfortunately the Muslims inevitably become a ` perceived enemy '.
    This resulted in consciously marginalizing the sacrifices of Muslims.
    It'll not be an overstatement to say that ` the politics of
    remembrance and (deliberate) forgetfulness' played havoc with the
    voluminous contribution that Muslims made. Hence we find only passing
    references being made that too only about selected ` nationalist `
    personalities like Moulana Azad.

    As rightly said by Prof. Shan Muhammad of Alighar Muslim
    University in his Muslims and India's Freedom Movement, ` the result
    of all this has been the campaign of hatred and the press propaganda
    against the Muslims. After the attainment of Independence it was
    hoped that our intellectuals would say good-bye to the British
    historiography of infusing communal politics and sowing the seeds of
    dissension between the two communities in India and usher in the
    golden age of freedom. But it was hope, contrary to the expectations;
    the role of Indian Muslims in the national movement has not been
    given adequate coverage in the press or books. It has either been
    side tracked or referred to here and there by scholars. Instead of
    factual and secular historiography it has been communalized. The
    contribution of Muslim revolutionaries, poets and pose writers is not
    known today'. The ultimate result is the creation of a wide gap, a
    gap ever widening between Muslims and Hindus in India.

    Nawab Sirajuddaula, First Native Ruler who realized
    the menace latent in British expansion and tried to check it

    Sirajiddaula, Nawab of Bengal was the first native ruler who relised
    the menace latent in British expansion and tried to check it in its
    inception. The additional fortification of Calcutta by the
    British `Provoked the Nawab's wrath '. He marched to Calcutta and
    captured Fort William on 20, 1756. Due to the great betrayal by his
    unfaithful General Mir Jafar and a group of wealthy Businessmen and
    rich financers group under the leader ship of Big Banker Jagth Sethi,
    got defeat in the battle of Plassey. However Sirajuddaula stood in
    the annuals of history as a first ruled who challenged the
    expansionist trends of British and tried to avert the danger to
    Mother Land. After the battle of plassey, Nawab Mir Qasim fought
    against the British heroically and got defeat in 1764 at Buxar. The
    successes in these battles lead the British to capture the states of
    Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

    Muslim fakirs unfurled the first flag of revolt.

    Muslim Fakirs of Bengal unfurled the first flag of revolt,
    roughly 100 years before the First War of India's Independence. The
    British who were getting some hold over the affairs of native rulers
    were conspiring to loot the wealth of the natives, and trying to get
    control all over Bengal with the active help of native rulers. At
    about 1763 for the first time Muslim fakirs revolted against the
    English East India Company under the able leadership of Majnu Sha
    Fakir. sanyasi leaders like Bhawani Pathak supported Fakir's revolt
    against the company and its stooges. The first and foremost combined
    revolt of Fakirs and Hindu Sanyasis against the British was called
    Fakir-Sanyasi Revolt. After the death of Majnu sha Fakir leaders like
    Musa Sha, Chirag Ali, Nurul Muhammad etc. led these struggles until
    1800. Later on in 1820, inspired by the philosophy of Haji Syed
    Ahamed Barelvi, Muslims revolted against the British. Gradually it
    became a militant revolt under the leadership of Titu Mir. The
    followers of Ahmed Barelvi were called Wahabis, and they continued
    their heroic fight against the British until 1870. This struggle
    remained in the annals of the history of India as Wahabi Movement.
    Abdul Aziz, Mahammed Mahashin, Inayat Ali, Vilayat Ali, Peer Ali etc.
    played leading role in this glorious movement. The prince of Nizam
    estate, Mubarijddaulah, the brother of the nawab also joined hands
    with Wahibis in Decaan. Inspite of several conspiracy cases, trails,
    severe punishments, the Wahabis continued their struggle. On the
    other hand, the father of Farajia struggle, Haji Shariyathulla took
    to arms against the British. This struggle has come to be known as
    Farajia Struggle. It became very famous during 1830 to 1900. Dudu
    Miya, an able son of Shariyathulla, led the struggle successfully for
    several years. The Farajia heroes Noya Miya, Amir Miya continued
    struggle for a period of 50 years.

    Though at the early stages all these struggles were intended
    to bring about religious reforms, they gradually changed their
    direction against the British. They took arms against the British and
    their stooges like Zamindars, Police officers and Mahajans (Money
    Lenders), who joined hands with foreign rulers in exploiting and
    oppressing Indian masses, peasants, artisans and the rural poor.
    Thus Fakirs, Farajis, Wahabis became the forerunners of people's
    struggles against the British for India's independence. And daring
    and dashing characters of these struggles left behind an inspiring
    legacy of a heroic and sustained struggle against the British and
    also became a model for the formation of a well knit all-India
    political organization

    The Tiger of Mysore TEEPU SULTHAN

    Teepu Sulthan was the first Indian ruler, who cautioned the
    native rulers about the imperialistic designs of the British. He, a
    prince with foresight enthused the native rulers to give up their
    destructive infighting to defend their country from the onslaught of
    British colonialism. He continued the struggle initiated by his
    father Hyder Ali against the foreign rulers. He addressed letters to
    native rulers explaining the true colours of colonial rulers and
    their well laid out plans to devour the country. If the native rulers
    had lent full support to Teepu Sulthan, we would not have remained as
    rulers here, was the statement of a British General Wellsly, after
    the martyrdom of Teepu in the battlefield of the fourth Mysore war.
    This shows the importance of Teepu's resistance and foresight.
    Fighting on two fronts, one the native rulers and the other the
    colonial power, he died on the battlefield on May 4th 1799. The
    people of Mysore acclaimed him as the tiger of Mysore. It was only
    after the death of Teepu, that the British military officer General
    Harris could declare that, from today India is ours. This shows how
    Teepu had proved to be a great obstacle in the way of the British.
    There was no other hero for half a century, who firmly challenged the
    British after the martyrdom of Teepu sulthan.

    The first war of Independence

    After Teepu, Muslims laid down their lives in the struggle started in
    1857, famous as the First War of India's Independence under the
    leadership of the Mughal emperor Bahadur Sha Jaffar. In this
    struggle the courageous role played by Begum Hazarat Mahal of Oudh is
    laudable. She fought the foreign rulers, challenged them and offered
    stiff resistance for a period of 14 months, declaring her child as
    ruler of the Oudh. She inspired the native rulers and ruled her
    state in the time of crisis. It is remarkable to notice thast I n
    those days the so-called developed countries like England did not
    have women in military. But here in India, we find women in patriotic
    military force with proper training, under the leadership of Begum
    Azizun, a woman of just 25 years old. She fought on the side of Nana
    Saheb. Azizun sacrificed her life for the sake of motherland. She
    preferred death to surrendering to the enemy. There were other
    courageous women like Habeeba Begum and a women donned in green
    dress, who fought violently for the motherland and courted the
    gallows without any fear. Begum Rahima bravely fought the enemy
    forces. Asgari Begum was barbarically burnt alive for not disclosing
    the secrets of revolutionaries. Moulvi Ahamadulla Sha Fyzabadi
    marched forward victoriously and inflicted such heavy losses on the
    British that they announced a reward of Rs. 50,000-00 for his head.
    The Raja of Powain betrayed and he was shot him to death, and his
    head was cut off and sent to the British lords, to get the reward.
    Only after seeing the head of Ahamadull Sha, the British officers
    with a sigh of relief declared that the most formidable enemy of the
    British in northern India was dead. Azimulla Khan, brain behind the
    revolt, who was the vakeel of Nana Saheb of Kanpur, wrote several
    letters to the native rulers and public infusing in them patriotic

    Thus there is a long list of Muslim patriots who bravely fought the
    British.The list, among the others, includes Moulana Liyakhat Ali
    Khan, Hikmatulla Khan, Kahn Bahddur Khan, who became a symbol of
    Hindu- Muslim unity. Mahammad Bhakth Khan, the military general of
    the first war of India's independence, Bakshi Ali, who inspired
    Jhansi ki Rani to revolt, Shehajada Feroz Sha several others.

    Several fatwas were issued by the ulema to wage a war against the
    British, which stirred the whole community to fulfill the obligations
    enjoined on it. Moulvi Fazle Haq and Moulana Sarfrz Ali who wielded
    enormous influence upon the people closely aligned themselves with
    the revolt. Haji Imadadullah gave stiff resistance fight to the
    British while commanding the Mujahids in the plains of Shamili. In
    UP, Moulana Qasim Nanutvi and Moulana Rasheed Ahamed Gangohi led the
    rebellious forces during the uprisings. Thus Ulema, along with
    others, made it obligatory upon the Muslims to wage a holy war
    against the British.

    In Southern India several patriots unfurled the flag of revolt at
    the cost of their lives. A rebel by name cannon blew up Subedar
    Ahmed and several of his men were shot dead in Vishakapatnam. Pathan
    Turrebaz Khan, Moulvi Allauddin etc. attacked the British residency
    at Hyderabad. Turrebaz Khan was hanged publicly and Allauddin was
    sent to Andaman. The list containing the names of such legendary
    heroes is very long.

    Editors who laid down their lives

    Muhammed Bakhar, native of Delhi, editor of DELHI AKHBAR, was one
    among the several other editors, whom the British treated as their
    archenemy. General Hudson, who was notorious for his cruelty,
    arrested him and kept in custody for a week and shot him dead for
    writing essays against the British and inspiring the fellow Indians
    to revolt against the foreign ruler in 1857. After him, Shoyabulla
    Khan, editor of a Urdu magazine IMROJ, published from Hyderabad
    (present capital of Andhra Pradesh state) was killed by the Rajakars.
    Shoyab, an apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, mounted scathing criticism
    on the policy of the Nizam, and the cruelty of the Rajakars. Enraged
    by the kind of intellectual crusade that Shoyabulla carried on, the
    Rajakaras butchered him brutally in 1948 when he was on his way to
    his home from his office. Except these two, we will not find any
    other editor, who laid his lives for the sake of his commitment and
    the cause of the Country.

    Muslims were made prime targets of British tyranny

    Unfortunately, the dream of the rebels did not come true and the
    first was of Independence ended in a failure. After the recapture of
    Delhi in September 1857, the British unleashed a reign of terror. But
    in inflicting punishments they discriminated between the members of
    one community and to other. Some of the British officers viewed the
    1857 revolt as an Islamic Revolt.

    Henry Mead was of the view that, this rebellion, in its present
    phase, cannot be called a sepoy Mutiny. It did begin with the sepoys,
    but soon its true nature was reveled, it was an Islamic revolt.'
    Another narrator of the ` dreadful drama ' opined, An English officer
    had made it a principle to treat every Muslim as a rebel. He would
    enquire from everyone he saw if he was a Hindu or a Muslim, and would
    shoot him dead right there if he turned out to be a Muslim. Henry
    Harrington Thomas of the Bengal Civil Service wrote a pamphlet in
    1858 titled Rebellion in India and our future policy. In that he
    observed, I have stated that the Hindus were not the contrivers or
    the primary movers of the 1857 rebellion, and I now shall attempt to
    show that it was the result of a Mohammad conspiracy...left to their
    resources, the Hindus never would or could have encompassed such an

    This attitude towards the Muslims continued to be the cornerstone of
    British Policy in Indian for a quite long time. The Muslims were
    debarred from lucrative government jobs and were ejected from all
    other gainful occupations; their trade was ruined and endowments,
    from which their schools were maintained, were confiscated. It was
    sometimes openly stated in official notifications for government
    vacancies that only Hindus would be considered for appointment. Thus
    Sir William Hunter has reproduced extracts from papers, which stated
    that the appointments would be given to none but Hindus. Continuing
    his comments on the situation Hunter said: ` the Muslims have now
    sunk so low that even when qualified for Government employment, they
    are studiously kept out of it by government notifications. Nobody
    takes any notice of their helpless conditions, and the higher
    authorities do not deign even to acknowledge their existence'.

    After Delhi had been subdued and the British control was firmly
    established over it, there began the public executions. Scaffolds
    were built on the thoroughfares and Englishmen treated such places as
    centers of entertainment. They would collect there in groups
    to `enjoy ` the executions. Several localities of Muslims were
    totally wiped out. Historians recorded that Muslims were made special
    targets of tyrannical acts. With a view that the Muslims initiated
    the rebellion, British turned totally hostile towards the whole
    community and directed their wrath against the Muslims. According to
    history, 27,000 Muslim patriots were executed, to speak nothing of
    those killed in the general massacre. Number of sepoys, citizens
    were killed, burned, hanged, and blown up by the cannons. Near about
    30 thousand Muslims of both sexes were exiled. One British officer
    Lord Robert in a letter to his mother wrote, these rascally Musalmans
    that, with God's help, English will still be the masters of India.

    Conspiracy to devide Indians on the basis of religion

    The British rulers were afraid of the unity exhibited by Indians
    against them and felt that it would be a danger for them in future.
    Hence, they decided to break this unity in the name of religion, to
    ensure their continuity as the rulers of the country. For this
    purpose British historians and civil officers of British Govt. like
    Elliot, Dawson, Malcolm, Briggs, Elephinstone were engaged and they
    were directed to write the history books that could set the mind of
    the people infavour of British, and that their rule was far better
    than that of the ` tyrannical Muslims rule '. They were specifically
    ordered to write about the history of Muslim rule in India as an age
    of Muslim tyranny over the Hindus. They depicted ` Muslim rule ` as
    a very cruel one towards the Hindus and they described the British
    rule that descended from haven as God's gift, to liberate the latter
    from the oppressive Muslim Rule. At the same time, officers like
    William Hunter wrote a book INDIAN MUSLIMS, in which, Muslims were
    categorized as a separate nationality, and explained at length the
    measures to be taken for their development. These books played
    divisive role and succeeded in creating misunderstandings and
    spreading false notions about the Muslims and Muslim rulers.

    The Prominet role in Indian national congress

    After the First War of Independence in 1857, the Indian National
    Congress, founded in 1885, led the National Movement. In this
    historical movement, from the beginning to the end, Muslims played
    their due role in each and every agitation. Badruddin Tayabji and
    Rahamtulla Sayani served as the presidents of the Indian National
    Congress. Moulana Shibli Nomani stood firmly with the Congress in
    spite of the criticism of Sir Syed Ahamed Khan. Affluent Muslims like
    Mir Humayun Kabir donated Five thousand rupees and leaders like Ali
    Bhimji toured across the country to strengthen the INC. Later eminent
    leaders like Dr.Ansari and Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad became the
    presidents of the Indian National Congress and various personalities
    like Moulana Mohammed Ali, Syed Mohammed, Justice Badruddin Taybji,
    Hakim Azmal Khan, and Syed Hasan Imam ect. Chaired the All India
    National Congress sessions held at various placers. Moulana Abul
    Kalam Azad became the president of INC twice, first in 1923 when he
    was 35 years old and again in 1940.

    The Multifarious role played by the Ulema

    In spite of the divide and rule policy pursued by the British, the
    religious leaders of Muslims i.e. the Ulemas declared total support
    to the national movement. We have already seen how several religious
    leaders took part in the First War of Independence. The Ulemas of
    Punjab issued a fatwa in 1888 which made it incumbent on the
    Muslims to join the Congress and declared it haram ( unlawful) to
    join hands with Sir Syed Ahamed Khan and others, who were
    discouraging Muslims from joining the Indian National Congress.
    Ulemas, who took up sword and spear in the First War of India's
    Independence against British, replaced them with pen and the tongue.
    Ulemas of Darul Uloom at Deoband, Shamli, and Fhirangi Mahal
    continued the struggle against Brithish. The Moulanas of these
    institutions issued Fatwas stating that it was the duty of all
    Muslims to participate in the national movement. To this effect an
    anthology of hundreds of fatwas was released as a book with the title
    NASRATUL ABRAR. Great Islamic theologians like Moulana Mahammad
    Hasan, Moulana Mahammad Hasan Madani, Moulana Obedulla Sindhi,
    Moulana Saifulla, Moulana Mahammad Shiroji and many others waged war
    and lived in exile for a number of years. Ulemas like Moulana Syed
    Mahammad declared openly that fighting for India's independence is as
    important and pious as performing Namaj everyday. Thus different
    organizations and institutions related to Ulemas lent there fullest
    support and participated in the National Movement and guided the
    people to march against the British.

    In 1905 Lord Curjon conspired to break the Hindu-Muslim amity and win
    over the Muslims to the side of the British by dividing Bengal. But
    the people offered stiff resistance to the partition of Bengal.
    Muslim leaders like Barrister Abdul Rasheed, Liyakhat Hussain, Abdul
    Hakim Gajnavi, Yussuf Khan; Bahadur Mahammad etc. were in the
    forefront of the movement and suffered much. They popularized
    Swadeshi among the Muslims of Bengal and established educational
    institutions to impart national education to the students. The slogan
    that came in to effect at that time, Vandematharam inspired one and
    all. Finally, in 1911, the government withdrew its proposal of
    dividing Bengal.

    The British left no stone unturned to keep the Muslims away from the
    agitational politics of the Indian National Congress. They took
    several steps to woo Muslims to their own interests. Due to these
    tactics of the British the All India Muslim League came into
    existence in 1906, which not unexpectedly was blessed by the
    Viceroy. The League, which adopted a hostile attitude towards the
    Indian National Congress, could not continue it for long. ML came
    closer to the INC and cooperated in all its ventures to keep the
    nation united and launch the movement for Swaraj. Ultimately this
    attitude culminated into the signing of the Lucknow Pact in 1916.

    The sparks of Agni Yug

    The Swadesi and the Vande-matharam movements inspired many within the
    country and abroad to organize revolutionary groups and to take part
    in the national movement. In this period which is characterized as
    the Agni Yug ( era of fire ), Dr. Barkatulla Bhopali, Dr. Massur,
    Abdul Wahab worked as members of the Gadar party. The first Indian
    Government in exile was formed in 1916 with Kabul as the
    headquarters. Dr. Barkatulla was the Prime Minister and Moulana
    Obedulla Sindhi was the Deputy Prime Minister. A federal constitution
    was prepared by Moulana Sindhi, which was acclaimed by one and all as
    the best one to India with different religions customs and

    Muslim women continued the tradition of the women of the First War of
    India's Independence. While the police was searching for the
    legendary revolutionary Khudiram Bose, who killed the wife of a
    British officer, the sister of revolutionary leader Moulvi Abdul
    Wahid gave shelter to him and afterwards became so popular as
    Khudiram ki didi in the history of freedom movement.

    Moulana Madammadul Hasan of Deoband sent a letter to Indian soldiers
    requesting them to revolt against the British. This letter was
    written on a silk cloth in code language. Hence this was known as
    The Conspiracy of Silk Letters. Shaik Abdul Rahman of Hyerabad joined
    hands with the revolutionaries. Rasallulla Khan, Imtiyaz Ali,
    Ruknuddin got capital punishment for participating in Singapore
    revolt of March 1915. They refused the proposal of repentance and
    took the gallows. The Indian soldiers of Mandalay Conspiracy Case,
    Musthafa Hussain, and Ali Ahmed were executed. In this Era of Fire
    several patriots became martyrs. Not only young men, but also young
    women like Razia Khatoon, joined and worked with the spirit of
    sacrifice in several revolutionary associations like Juganthar,
    Anuseelana Samithi, Gadar Party, Hindusthan Republican Association,
    Athmonnathi Dalam etc.


    Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad leaned towards the revolutionary movement in
    the early phase of his political life. He founded a revolutionary
    organization called DARUL IRSHAD. He made the members of this society
    to take an oath on the Koran to sacrifice their lives for the sake of
    motherland. This oath taking ceremony was organized in the Burial
    ground of Khiddipur. As Moulana was a Muslim, in the beginning Bengal
    revolutionaries suspected him; but afterwards followed him in
    extending the revolutionary activities to other areas. He started Al-
    Hilal a Urdu weekly, with an object of spreading the revolutionary
    ideology. Moulana Azad, Jalalluddin Ahmed, the follower of Moulana
    Azad successfully organized revolutionary activities in Bengal.
    Afterwards due to the influence of Mahatma Gandhi, Moulana Azad
    became a non-violent freedom fighter and played prominent role in the
    National Movement.

    In those days, several Urdu magazines were published which were
    supporting the National Movement. To name only a few, Mahamad Ali
    published COMRADE and HUMDARD; Jaffar Ali Khan published ZAMINDAR;
    Wahiddin Saleem's THE MUSLIM GAZETTE etc. The editors and publishers
    of these magazines were frequently harassed and imprisoned by the
    British Govt. The Editors and the management were very often fined
    and magazines were put in the block list, and properties of magazines
    were ceased and were never returned.

    Bataq Miya Ansari, who saved the life of Gandhi

    It was Peer Mahammad Munis, a teacher by profession, who first made
    public the atrocities committed by the British planters of Neel
    Plantation on the peasants at Champaran in Bihar. In 1916 at the
    Indian National Congress meeting he met Gandhiji and explained the
    sufferings of the peasants. By then Shaik Mahammad Gulab was leading
    a peasant movement by consolidating them against the planters.
    Gandhiji went to Chaparan to solve the problems of the peasants. The
    planters conspired to kill Gandhiji, who supported the peasants. They
    forced Bhataq Miya Ansari of Mothihari village to put an end to
    Gandhiji's life by administering poison in his food. The planters
    threatened him that his whole family would be destroyed if he did not
    accept to do so. Due to the fear of harassment by the officers the
    small employee of the British Govt. Ansari agreed to do so. But at
    the right time he disobeyed the planters and told Gandhiji that
    poison was mixed in the soup and thus he saved him from death. At
    that time Dr. Rajendra Prasad also accompanied Gandhiji and he was
    the witness of the incident.

    In 1950 Rajendra Prasad visited Mothihari village as the President
    of India. Then he met Ansari, who was in utter poverty. He had lost
    his employment and property, as he did not follow the instructions of
    the planters. Dr. Rajendra Prasad remembered how Ansari had saved
    Gandhiji in 1917. He sanctioned 50 acres of land to Ansari. It is
    saddening to learn that government officials allotted the land to
    Bataq Miya Ansari only after his death i.e. in 1957.


    With the passing of the Rowlett Act in 1918, the govt. unleashed
    oppressive measures. Gandhiji gave a call not to violate the Govt.
    Acts. On a mass scale the people took oaths. The first signatories
    on this oath happened to be Abbas Tayabji, Hakim Azmal Khan, Umar
    Sobhani, Dr. M.A. Ansari, Moulana Abdul Bari, Moulana Hasrat Mohani,
    Yakubkhan etc. All of them contributed significantly to national
    movement. Dr. Ansari and Dr. Abdul Rahaman, became the president and
    secretary respectively of the Satygraha meeting against the Rowlett
    Act. On this occasion there was a grand Hindu-Muslim unity. At the
    Jama Masjid in Delhi, the Arya Samaj leader Swami Sraddhanand, and in
    Bombay Masjid Mahatma Gandhi and Sarojini Naidu addressed the
    meetings organized on March 30, 1919. There was mutual respect to the
    religious sentiments and they rose above the traditional norms. The
    anti Rowlatt Sathyagraha created history in Amrithsar where the
    Govt. ruthlessly oppressed anti Rowlett agitation leaders. Dr.
    Saifuddin Kitchlu and Dr. Sathypal were sent on exile as they
    organized a protest rally and meeting. To protest the inhuman acts
    of the British officers a meeting was organized in Jalian Wala Bagh.
    General Dyer opened indiscriminate fire and relentlessly killed 378
    persons. Among the dead 55 were Muslims, and it is noteworthy that a
    55 years old woman Umaar Beebi, resident of Amrithsar, was one among

    Khilafath-Non cooperation movement :
    symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity
    Khilafath and Non-cooperation movements are to be written in golden
    letters in the History of Indian National Movement. There was
    widespread fury among the Muslims as the British rulers repealed the
    Khalifath institution to which much reverence was paid by the
    Muslims in the world. Moulana Abdul Baari of Ferangi Mahaal, Lucknow,
    started All India Khilafat Conference against the British Govt.,
    after gathering Fatwas from different Ulemas. Moulana Abdul Kalam
    Azad, Hakem Azmal khan, Moulana Hasarath Mohani led this committee.
    Gandhiji thought this as a good opportunity to unite the Hindus and
    the Muslims and hence he supported the Khilafath struggle and gave a
    call for non-cooperation movement. People responded to this call and
    moved together by forgetting caste, creed, religion and region.
    Ulemas and other leaders advised the people not to hurt the
    sentiments of the people of other faiths. In this context, Moulana
    Azad declared, it is the injunction of Islam that the Muslims should
    protect their country from invaders, irrespective of whether the
    invaders are Muslims or even the army of the Caliph himself. At the
    same time, Moulana Mazrul Haq declared that for KHURBANI (animal
    sacrifice) cows were not necessary, on the eve of BAKRID festival.
    Honouring the call of the leaders students left their educational
    institutions, employees left their jobs, and people renounced their
    honours and awards conferred by British Govt. As a part of non-
    cooperation movement separate National Muslim Institution JAMIA-
    MILIA- ISLAMIA came into existence in October 1920 for those students
    who left the Institutions like M.A.O College of Alighar and other
    educational institutions run by or with the help of the Govt. Shaikul
    Hind Moulana Muhammadul Hasan inaugurated the Jamia Milia Islamia.
    Ulemas declared that, it was against the religion for Muslims to
    serve under the British govt.

    In Khilafath and Non-Cooperation movements Ali Brothers (Shoukat Ali
    and Mahammad Ali), Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Ansari, Dr. Zakir
    Hussain, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Hakim Azmal Khan, Mazharulal Haq, Prof.
    Muzeeb, Abdul Rahim, Mahammad Musa, Abdul Haji, Akbar Ali Khan, Meer
    Muhammad Hussain, Abdul Subhan, Moulana Athavulla Sha Bukhari, Haji
    Imdadulla, Gulam Mohiddin Sahib of Vijayawada, Badrul Hasan, Akbar
    Ali Khan, Makbul Ali of Hyderabad played a ledingt role. Along with
    men, Muslim women also played an equal role sacrificing their might
    for the sake of motherland. Abadi Begum Bano, mother of Ali Brothers
    declared that, In my country even dogs and cats should not be
    imprisoned by the British. Muslim Women leaders like Begum
    Nishatunnisa Mohani, Amjadi Begum, Begum Amina Tayabji, Shafatunnisa
    Begum, Fathima Ismail, Bibi Amuthusslaam etc participated in the
    Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements. Among these some inspired
    their husbands and some others assumed the responsibilities of the
    arrested husbands. Some by their writings and some by their public
    speeches played significant role. Some used their property to support
    the families of activists. Referring to Begum Sahmsunnisa Ansari for
    her commitment, selfless service and hospitality, Gandhiji declared,
    I bow my head before her.

    The Fire Brand poet and staunch nationalist, Moulana Hasarath Mohani
    moved his historic resolution which aimed at changing the Congress
    creed as attainment of Swaraj or Complete Independence, free from all
    foreign control, by the people of India by all legitimate and
    peaceful means. It was in 1921 at the Ahamedabad Congress session.
    All in the session including Subhash Chandra Bose were moved by the
    forceful speech of Moulana Mohani and supported his proposal. As
    Mahatma Gandhi rejected the proposal it was dropped. Begum
    Nishathunnisa, wife of Hasarath Mohani, criticized the act of
    Mathama. The argument placed by her in her criticism attracted
    Gandhiji. Even though she was highly critical of Gandhi, the latter
    appreciated her commitment for the cause of the country. Later on in
    1927 at the Madras session held under the presidentship of Dr.
    M.A Ansari, the proposal of Moulana Hasrath Mohani was accepted.

    In 1927 at the Madras Indian National Congress conference, it was
    decided to boycott the Simon Commission. As per the instruction of
    the INC, in Bombay a young man by name Yusuf Meharali led the
    procession. It was a very big demonstration that attracted the whole
    of India and Yusuf became a symbol of inspiration to the youth.
    Accordingly he organized several Militant Youth Leagues to help the
    INC. He gave an advice to people on this occasion reviling the
    British that, the British rulers are like dogs. If you kick them,
    they will lick you, but if you lick them, they will kick you.

    The outbreak of Malabar Moplahs

    The Malabar Moplahs had a very long history of fighting against the
    zamindars, who acted as the agents of the Britishs. Right from 1800
    onwards they fought against them with arms, and such Moplahs played a
    special role in the Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements under the
    leadership of Moulvi Ali Mussaliyar. Away from their militancy,
    Moplahs were non-violent in this movement. But they were incited and
    consequently they revolted and took to arms against the British.
    British officers along with their police ran away from Mophal
    dominated area. Moplahs organized their own style of people's rule
    and thus created a new history. Later the British military took
    vengeance and hundreds of Moplahs were killed.
    A train tragedy famous as the ` Bellary Train Tragedy ` took place
    in Malabar. The British military sent 127 activists from Thirur to
    Bellary jail. They were packed in a small wagon, which is
    insufficient to accommodate all the 127 Moplahs. It caused
    intolerable suffocation resulting in the death of more than 70
    Moplahs by the time the train reached Coimabtore.

    In this struggle 252 Moplahs were shot dead by British military, and
    another 500 were sentenced to life imprisonment. Along with Moulvi
    Kunyi Khadar, Moulvi Ali Mussaliyar, several of them were executed.
    Moplahs leaders like Mahammad Abdul Rahman Saheb, Moulvi Khadar
    Mohiddin, Mohiddin Koya etc. played an admirably prominent role in
    this movement.

    When the Khilafat and the Non-cooperation movements were at their
    zenith , the violence that erupted at Chowri Chowra made Mahatma
    Gandhi suspend the movement infavour of constructive programmes. The
    abrupt decision of Gandhi was criticized by youth and some of the
    elder leaders of Indian National Congress also resented such move.
    Young men thought that there was no other way except armed struggle
    to drive the British out of India. The decision of Gandhiji, which
    caused much dissatisfaction, protest and anger, paved way for the
    second phase of revolutionary.

    Kakori hero Ashfhaqulla Khan

    The youth like Ashfhakhulla Khan, who believed that there was no
    other way except taking up armed struggle to achieve independence,
    became the members of the Hindustan Republican Army. In the Kakori
    Train Robbery, planned by the HRA, he played a significant role. One
    year after the heroic act the British police arrested him. It was
    hinted that simple confession involving his comrades would secure his
    release. But Asfhaqullah scornfully rejected the proposal. Later on
    he was hanged in the year 1927. One day before his execution,
    surrounded by the lamenting relatives, he said if I am not allowed to
    observe the last ceremony of the noblest ordeal with all dignity and
    steadiness, then the sanctity of the occasion will be tarnished.
    Today I feel myself worthy of honour with the hope that a sacred and
    great responsibility for the liberation of motherland has been
    entrusted to me. You should feel happy and proud that one of yours is
    fortunate enough to offer his life. You must remember that Hindu
    community has dedicated geart souls like Khudiram and Kanailal. To me
    this is a good fortune that belonging to the Muslim community, I have
    acquired the privilege of following the footsteps of those great
    His was only 27 years old at the time of execution. He wrote an
    appealing letter addressing the people of India. It read :
    Irrespective of your religion, tradition cooperate with each other in
    the service of country. Don't quarrel among yourselves. Though the
    ways are different our aim is one. When it is so, why should we waste
    our energy in fighting? Rise against the British unitedly and make
    the country free. From the execution platform he declared his wish
    as, Hamara wathan rahe sadaa khayam aur aabad, Hamara kya, ham rahe,
    Na rahe, and laid down his life to liberate motherland from the yoke
    of British. As he was very fond of his native place, he asked his
    people to place some earth of his village in his Coffin. The couplet
    in this regard goes like this: Kuch arju nahihai, arjutho yah hia
    rakhdo koyi jazarsi khane wathn kafan me.

    In the second phase of the Agni Yug Moulvi Gayajuddin, Naseeruddin
    Ahmed, Abdul khader of the Juganthar party, Altaf Ali, Mahammad
    Ismail, Jahiruddin etc. of the Anuseelan party and so many other
    revolutionaries fought bravely against the British. Fazululla Khan a
    Deputy Magistrate in the British Govt. assigned 60 acres of land to
    Alluri Sitharama Raju, who led the famous Rampa rebellion in Andhra
    Pradesh. Mr Fazululla supported Alluri's anti-British activities and
    the Rampa rebellion. Unfortunately he died due to the severe illness
    at an early age; otherwise he would have take part in Rampa movement
    as a comrade of Alluri Seetharama Raju.

    The suspension of Non-Cooperation movement created vacuum in the
    political arena. To assess the situation the INC formed a Civil
    Disobedience Enquiry Committe in June 1922, which was headed by Hakim
    Aajmal Khan. At this juncture the question of whether to contest or
    not to contest in the elections (Under the 1919 Act) divided the INC
    into two camps. Those who wish to contest were called ` Pro-
    changers `, and those opposed were called ` No Changers '. Hakim
    Azmal Khan was with the pro-changers, and Dr. M A Ansari was with the
    no-Changers. Later on Hakim Azmal Khan became one of the founders of
    the Swaraj Party headed by Mothi Lal Nehru. Due to the efforts of
    Moulan Abul Kalam Azad, a compromise was arrived in Delhi in a
    special session of INC the held under Moulana's presidentship in the
    year 1923

    Inspired by Bolshevik revolution

    Youth inspired by the success of the Russian Bolshevik revolution
    went to Russia to examine the socialist experiment. Some of them
    started educating the masses in this direction. In this context we
    cannot but remember Amir Hyder khan, who introduced communism and
    organized the communist party in South India. Showkath Usmani,
    Dr.Jainullabuddin and his wife, Hajara Begum, Mujafar Ahmed,
    popularly known as Kaka Babu, Dr. Mahammad Jaffar, Shamshul Huda, Dr.
    Ashroff, famous poets like Sardar Ali Zafri, Sajjad Jaheer, Quaji
    Nazrul Islam, and Makdum Mohiuddin of Hyderabad, Moulana Hasrath
    Mohani etc. were inspired by Bolshevik revolution The British Govt.
    foisted several conspiracy cases like Peshawar conspiracy case and
    Meerut conspiracy case against Amir Hyder Khan, Mujaffar Ahmed and
    Showkath Usmani and several others. All of them were imprisoned for
    several years.

    Khuda-I-khidmathgar Movement : A non-violent struggle

    In April 1930 Salt Sathyagraha movement was launched under the
    leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The March reached Dandi and salt was
    prepared there violating the British laws. On this occasion Gandhiji
    appointed Abbas Tayabji as his next `dictator' of the Dandi March. In
    the North Western Provinces the Pathans under the leadership of Khan
    Abdul Gaffar Khan, led a nonviolent struggle, which dismayed many
    including Gandhi. Even though the Pathans traditionally lovers of
    arms, they did not gone out of the non-violent path even when the
    military attacked with arms and killed several of them
    indiscriminately. Hundred of Pathans became martyrs in Khissa khani
    bazaar of Peshawar, receiving bullets from the British police Khuda-I-
    Khidmathgar (Servants of God) marched forward and sacrificed their
    lives and created a new chapter in the history of nonviolent
    movements of the world.

    During the Civil Disobedience movement, Moulana Altaf Hussein, Abdul
    Hayat, Tayyab Ali, Pathan Gayajuddin, Jalaluddin Hashmi, Prof.
    Humayun Kabir, Abu Hasan Circar, Riyazul Karim, Fakruddin Ali Ahmed,
    etc. had undergone long-term imprisonment. After the Lucknow
    conference in 1936, people with socialist ideas like Rafiq Zakaria,
    Hussain Jaheer, K.A. Abbas, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, took active role in
    the Congress party. Along with the individuals, several institutions
    like Khuda-e-Khidmathgar, Jamayath Ulema-I-Hind, Muzlis-I-Arhar,
    Nationalist Muslim Party, Momin Party, Shia Conference, Anjman-I-
    wathan, Krishik Praja Party etc. also played important roles.

    According to the Local Self-Government Act of 1935, elections were
    held and in those elections Congress got thumping majority against
    the Muslim League. In the Northwest also Congress got good majority
    by the unstained support provided by Khan Abdul Gaffaar Khan, Allah
    Buksh Sumrroh, Abdul Samad Khan, Dr. Khan Saheb etc. All these
    leaders fought against the communal politics of the Muslim League,
    and were against the proposal of the division of the country. They
    firmly stood against the Two Nation Theory. As a result of this,
    Muslim League leaders killed leaders like Allah Buksh Summrroh who
    fought against the communal forces until death. Communal forces
    murdered him in 1943. Abdul Gaffar Khan, known as the SARHAD GANDHI,
    was in prison for three decades before and after 1947 and was in
    exile for some more years. Abdul Samad Khan, known as BELUCHI GANDHI
    was imprisoned for several years.

    Mahamad Ali Jinnaha who went to London in 1930 returned in 1934. With
    his reentry into politics, Nationalist movement had taken several
    turns. Gandhiji did not take Dr. Ansaari to the Second Round Table
    Conference. The absence of nationalist Muslims gave the League a
    basis and a chance to proclaim itself as the sole representative of
    Muslims. Thus it became a good excuse to propagate communal politics.
    Jinnaha started invigorating the Muslim League. Irrational decisions
    taken by Pandit Jawaharlal and other leaders of the Indian National
    Congress belonging to Uttara Pradesh, Bihar and Bombay after the
    elections in 1937, added strength to the arguments of the Muslim
    League. Abul Kalam, in very clear terms, blamed Jawaharlal stating
    that Jawaharlal's action gave the Muslim league in the UP a new ease
    of was from the UP that League was reorganized. In 1940
    the Muslim League declared that Hindus and Muslims were two different
    nationalities and the two-nation theory was reiterated. In the Lahore
    meeting Jinnaha proposed the resolution on Pakistan.

    In fact the two-nation theory was not the brainchild of Jinnaha. It
    emerged out of the ideological acceleration of Hindu fanaticism and
    hate Muslim policy adopted since the creation of Hindu Mela in 1864
    by Raj Narayan Bose. Later, in 1923 Bhai Premanad, president of the
    Hindu Maha Sabha, had demanded a division of province on the basis
    of Hindu and Muslims majority. In 1924 Lala Lajpath Rai, in his
    articles published in THE TRIBUNE (26th November to 17th December
    1924) supported the idea of Bhai Permanand. In 1930 Khawja Abdur
    Rahim used the word PAKISTAN. Later when Chowdary Rahamath Ali
    published a brochure on this issue, Md. Jinnaha ridiculed the Idea of
    Pakistan stating that it was a wild musing of an irresponsible

    Moulana Abul Kalam Azad became the president of the INC for the
    second time at Ramghar Session 1940. He believed in the concept of
    one and undivided nationality. The Ramghar session passed
    resolutions that reflected the views of the Moulana. His advocacy of
    and conviction in one nation at Ramghar must have provoked the ML to
    publicize the Pakistan scheme only three day later on the basis of
    the two-nation theory. In the meanwhile Hindu communalists came
    forward and shook hands with the ML, declaring that Hindus-Muslims
    constituted separate nations. Azad paid a deaf ear to these communal

    In the month of August 1940 Gandhiji announced the ` Quit India '
    agitation. As per the findings of Dr. AU Sahik IPS, Yusuf Meharali of
    Bombay created the slogan Quit India. Even he wrote a book titled
    Quit India, which has become very popular and gone into several
    prints. This movement led the arrests of several INC leaders like the
    Moulana Azad, Dr. Syed Mahumad, Asaf Ali and others. They were kept
    in Ahamednagar fort. Even though the ML called the Muslims to keep
    themselves away from Quit India movement, nationalist Muslims took
    active part and played prominent role in the Same.

    After the release from the jail Moulana Azad represented the INC at
    Simla Conference in 1945. On this occasion the ML claimed to be the
    sole representative of the Muslims. Hence the conference failed.
    During the tenure of his leadership Moulana Azad successfully
    launched the Individual Sathyagraha, had negotiations with Sir
    Stafford Cripps and led the Quit India Movement.

    The confidants of Netaji

    Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose accepted the help of Japan for the
    liberation of the motherland. There were several Muslims in the Azad
    Hind Fouz as officers and soldiers. General Shanwaz Khan, Colonel
    Aziz Ahmed, Ashrafuddin Ahamed Chaudary, Colonel Habiburahaman, and
    Abid Hasan Safrani of Hyderabad etc played a key role in the Fouz.
    Akbar Sha was with Netaji when Bose escaped from India. In the
    submarine journey of Bose from Berlin, Abid Hasan Safrani followed
    Netaji as his personal secretary. In his last journey in airplane
    from Tokyo, Colonel Habiburehaman was with him. There were several
    martyrs like Ashroff Mandal, Amir Hayat, Abdul Rajq Ali, Akhtar Ali,
    Mahamad Ali Sha, Ata Mahamad, Ahmad Khan, A.K. Mirja, Abu Khan, S.
    Akhtar Ali, Ahmeadulla. Abdul Rahaman Khan and Abid Hasan Safrani,
    Khamrul Islam, Tajuddin from Hyderabad ect., who served in the Azad
    Hind Fouz in different positions. Abid Hasn Safrani who is from
    Hyderabad coined ` Jai Hind ' and ` Nethaji' , which had become
    house hold slogan in the history of freedom struggle.

    In 1943 while in Japan, Nathaji formed a Provisional Government of
    Free India that included some of the trusted lieutenants such as Col
    Aziz Ahamed, Lt.Colonel MZ Kiyam, Lt. Col. Ehasn Qadir, Lt. Col
    ShahnawajKhan, Karim Ghani and DM Khan.

    The British govt. foisted several cases and treated the members of
    the Azad Hind Fouz as traitors. General Shanawaaj Khan rejected the
    proposal of Mahamad Ali Jinnaha that the later would argue their case
    in the court, if the former separated himself from other Hindu
    Brethren, by declaring that we have stood shoulder to shoulder in the
    struggle for freedom. My comrades have died on the field of battle
    inspired by our leadership. We stand or fall together. In the trail
    that continued, Rasheed Ali was sentenced with 7 years imprisonment
    that was resented by the people of India.

    The last revolt

    During the Quit India Movement defense forces could not
    remain unaffected from expressing the spirit of patriotism openly.
    One of the causes for the discontentment among the defense forces was
    racial discrimination to which they were being subjected. It caused
    the revolt of Royal Indian Navy. It could be called as the last pin
    in the coffin of British Rule in India. And it would be treated as
    the last phase in India's struggle for independence. The revolt
    erupted in February 1946 against racial discrimination of the British
    in the Royal Indian Navy (RIN). Indian National Congress and the
    Muslim League fought against the British Navy Officers. Common
    people supported the revolt as they did in 1857. The unity of 1857
    was exhibited once again in 1946. The British indiscriminately shot
    at the Jawans and common people who demonstrated their resentment
    against the discrimination towards the Indians in the Navy. As usual,
    several Muslims laid down their lives in this last revolt. Moulana
    Azad interfered in this matter and sought the assurance from the
    Commander-in-Chief of the Indian forces that there would be no
    victimization of the naval personnel.

    Freedom of India at the cost of partition

    The Labour Party came into power in Britain. It held soft
    attitude towards the Indian Independence and was prepared to transfer
    power due to various reasons. A commission called Cabinet Commission
    was sent to India in March 1946. In the discussion with the
    commission the INC leaders opposed Partition of India and the ML was
    insistent on Partition. Rejecting the invitation to join in Interim
    government the League launched DIRECT ACTION programme, which
    resulted in to outbreak of communal riots. Moulana Azad firmly held
    the view that demand for Partition would cool down if some time was
    allowed to pass on between formation of Interim Government and the
    final transfer of power. But other congress leaders were very anxious
    to get the power transferred even at the cost of partition. So the
    Moulana's plan was not allowed to run in its full course. In July
    1946 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru succeeded Moulana Azad as the president
    of the Indian National Congress.

    Nationalist Muslims leaders offered stiff resistance to partition

    On 20th February 1947 British Prime Minister Attlee announced
    that the British would quit India by June 1948. Lord Mountbatten was
    sent to India to arrange for transfer of power. He brought forward a
    plan on 3rd June 1947.

    Moulana Azad was deeply distressed to find that Mountbattan
    was engaged in planning the partition of the country. He perceived
    that India was moving towards a great jeopardy. He was of the
    opinion that the Cabinet Mission Plan was the best solution for the
    unity of India. It could preserve unity and give every community an
    opportunity to function with freedom and hounour. Azad thought that
    the real problems of the country were economic and not communal...the
    differences related to class'es and not to communities. The Moulana
    pleaded his colleges, particularly Pandit Nehru not to take final
    step towards the partition of India. He emphasized in quite unequal
    terms that to accept partition was to accept Jinnaha's two-nation
    theory. In his view, the partition instead of removing communal
    fears would perpetuate them by creating two states based on communal
    hatred. He declared, if we acted in haste and accepted partition, we
    should be doing permanent injury to India.

    In Bengal Muslim legislators vehemently opposed partition
    while Hindu legislators demanded partition of India. According to Mr.
    A. Leonard Gordon, out of a total of 79 legislators from Hindu
    majority area 21 voted against the partition, 58-demanded partition.
    Likewise out of 141 legislators of Muslim majority area 106 voted
    against partition and 35 supported the demand for partition. It makes
    it crystal clear that a majority of Muslims were not infovour of
    partition and that they were deeply concerned about the unity of the

    Even after relentless efforts by Nationalist Muslimsin the
    AICC session in New Delhi held on 14th June 1947 Pandit Govinda
    Vallbhai Panth moved the resolution accepting the June 3 Plan, which
    was in favour of partition. Apart from Moulana Azad, other leaders
    of INC like Abdul Ghani, Hafizur Rehaman, Dr.Saifuddin Kitchlew,
    Ansar Harvani opposed it and described the resolution as a surrender
    to JInnah's obstinacy. Resolution was carried out by with the
    support of 157 to 29 votes. 32 members remained neutral. E.W. R.
    Lumby observed, that the opposition came mainly from...Nationalist
    Muslims, who felt that the congress had let them down. The efforts
    of Mahatma Gandhi, Moulana Azad, and the Frontier Gandhi Khan Abdul
    Gaffar Khan became futile. After the resolution was passed Gaffar
    Khan felt that they were thrown to the mercy of wolves.

    History sans Muslims is incomplete

    It can be said that from 1940 onwards until we got independence
    Gandhi-Moulana leadership guided the national movement. Azad, the
    then President of the Congress party understood the danger of two-
    nation theory. So he gave precedence to Hindu-Muslim unity than the
    attainment of Swaraj. He said on one occasion that ` If an angel
    descends from heaven today and proclaims from the Qutub Minar that
    India can attain Swaraj within 24 hours provided I relinquish my
    demand for Hindu-Muslim Unity, I shall retort to it: ` No my friend,
    I shall give up Swaraj, but not Hindu-Muslim unity, for if Swaraj is
    delayed, it will be a loss for India, but if Hindu-Muslim unity is
    lost, it will be a loss for the whole of mankind. This makes us
    clear that he preferred Hindu-Muslim unity to Swaraj for India. He
    warned that there was nothing to lose even if Swaraj was delayed, but
    if the unity among the Indians was broken, it would be a potential
    danger to the existence of human race itself. He vehemently refuted
    the arguments of communalists who held a nefarious view that religion
    would unite people forever.

    In this regard Moulana said, it is one of the greatest frauds on
    the people to suggest that religious affinity can unite areas that
    are geographically,economically, linguistically and culturally
    different. If it is true that Islam sought to establish a society,
    which transcends racial, linguistic, econimic and political
    frontiers. History has, however,, proved that the first few decated
    or at the most after the first century, Isliam was not able to unite
    all the Muslim countires on the basis of Islam alone. He was hopeful
    that political divisions of the country would not, in any way, affect
    our cultural unity. Indian culture was indivisible. Moulana explained
    this fact with a simple illustration: If we put a stick in the water,
    it may appear that the water has been divided but the water remains
    the same and the moment the stick is removed, even death appearance
    of division disappears. Thus Moulana fought ferociously against
    Partition and pleaded for Hindu-Muslim Unity.

    Indian culture and civilization with out Muslims is

    On 14th August 1947, the June 3 Plan was put into effect and India
    was partitioned. On 15th August India was declared as an Independent
    State. The rich, English educated, capitalists, land lords,
    industrialists, big business magnates, among Muslims, who wanted to
    grab the opportunities in a new country, the politicians who were
    power hungry left for Pakistan. But those Muslims the poor and the
    masses, who loved their motherland, continued to live in India. They
    became an inseparable part of India by participating in several
    developmental activities, and contributed their fullest might for the
    progress of India.

    To conclude in the apt words of Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad, I
    am indispensable to this noble edifice. With out me this splendid
    structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element that has
    gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim...I am proud of
    being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian

    (Author of this article has write several books on the ` the role of
    Muslims in the freedom movement of India. His books are 01. Indian
    Freedom Movement : Muslim Women, 02. Indian Freedom Movement :
    Muslims, 3. Indian Freedom Movement : Andhra Muslims, 04. Indian
    Freedom Movement : Uprisings of Muslim patriots, 05. Mysore puli :
    Teepu Sulthan, 06. Shaheed-e-Azam Ashfhaqulla Khan, 07. Indian
    Freedom Struggle : Muslim Heroes (First Part). Interested readers can
    communicate with the author to this address : House No. 3-506,
    Apnaghar, UNDAVALLI CENTRE - 522501, Tadepally Mandalam, Guntur Dist.
    Andhra Pradesh. Phone: 08645-272940, Cell. 9440241727. )

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    Jajjakku mullah Hairan for this nice article.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Maripat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Source of Breeze

    Default Re: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    Muslims in Subcontinent: 60 Years After Partition

    By Syed Shahabuddin
    Published in Arab News on Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012

    Though Allama Iqbal, a renowned philosopher, poet and politician in British
    India, had a limited concept of a Muslim homeland in the subcontinent as
    enunciated it in 1929 (the North West only), partition was conceived in 1940 for
    the benefit of the Muslim majority living in the northwest as well as the east
    of the subcontinent, and the Pakistan Resolution, adopted by the Muslim League
    in March 1940, spoke in terms of Muslim-majority areas in these two
    regions and the creation of Muslim states therein. The resolution
    conceived that the religious minorities living in two parts of the subcontinent
    under a reciprocal arrangement shall be able to safeguard the interest of
    Muslims in the rest of India.

    However, the Pakistan Movement did receive more enthusiastic support from the
    Muslims living in the Muslim-minority provinces of British India, particularly
    Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, than from the Muslim-majority provinces (which were to
    form Pakistan). It is generally conceded that the near unanimous support of the
    Muslim electorate in the Muslim-minority provinces in the election of 1945-46
    which created the unchallengeable basis for the Muslim League to claim the
    “sole” leadership of all the Muslims of India. From there on, it negotiated
    on equal terms with the British government as well as with the Indian National
    Congress for determining the future setup after the British left.

    The irony lies in that it was Lajpat Rai who first envisioned Pakistan as it is
    today and proposed the partition of Punjab. And it was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar,
    again a Hindu hard-liner, who first defined Indian citizenship as exclusively
    Hindu and in 1937, as the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, defined India as a
    country of two separate nations Hindus and non-Hindus. So neither Iqbal
    nor Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but Lajpat Rai and Savarkar were the real authors of
    the two-nation theory; Jinnah only reversed the Savarkar proposal to divide
    India between Muslims and non-Muslims.

    In 1947 by proposing to partition Punjab and then Bengal and Assam on the basis
    of religion and contiguity, the Congress leadership directly contributed to the
    partition of the country thus foisting Jinnah on his own petard and leaving him
    with what he called a moth-eaten Pakistan.

    The question is: Why did the Muslims of the minority provinces in British India
    signed a blank check in favor of Pakistan, shout slogans and vote massively in
    its favor? Why did they never question the leadership of the Muslim League and
    the Pakistan Movement on their status after the country was divided? Why did
    they behave like dumb, driven cattle? Why did they never ask any question? And
    never receive any answer? In retrospect, this lack of thinking appears to be not
    only shortsighted but almost suicidal.

    Immediately after partition, there was almost total migration of non-Muslims
    from West Pakistan to India, substantially even from East Pakistan, although the
    Hindus continued to form some 15 percent of its population.

    The theory of reciprocity, hostage and tit-for-tat, enunciated by the supporters
    of the Muslim League, even by Jinnah, in negotiations with the Cabinet Mission,
    thus proved to be hollow and ineffective and useless before it could be put to
    any test, in protecting the interest of the Muslims of India even if the rulers
    of Pakistan so wanted.

    In any case, India and Pakistan had emerged as independent sovereign states and
    under international law and as members of the UNO they were both expected to
    respect human rights of their minorities but they were precluded from
    interference in the internal affairs of the other state. This explains why the
    Liaqat Ali Khan-Jawaharlal Nehru Agreement of 1950, which was signed in the wake
    of communal disturbances in East Pakistan, remained a dead letter and has hardly
    ever been invoked. Indeed, even the successor state, namely, Bangladesh, has
    never invoked it in relation to the Muslims of India.

    The prevalent view in Pakistan is that the Muslims of the minority provinces
    were expected to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the Muslims in
    Pakistan and for the glory of Islam. In fact they did. Was it bravado or
    stupidity? In any case Muslim Indians received no reward, not even
    acknowledgment for the sacrifice.

    Before partition there were some hints on exchange of population but this was an
    absolutely impracticable proposition considering the lack of balance between the
    huge number of Muslims in India and the relatively small population of
    non-Muslims in Pakistan. No doubt after the communal bloodshed, millions of
    Muslims migrated to Pakistan from East Punjab and some from UP and Bihar. For
    some time there was relative freedom of movement between the two countries and
    over the next 10 years a few hundred thousand Muslim Indians crossed the border,
    largely into East Pakistan.

    Ambedkar had proposed an organized exchange of population, on terns agreed to in
    advance but he underestimated the enormity and impracticability of the
    undertaking. Neither the Muslim League nor the Congress had ever formally
    proposed any exchange of population as a concomitant of partition. India was
    ideologically committed to build a secular state. So how could it object to
    Muslims living in India? The Indian leadership, including Gandhi, Nehru and
    Patel, opposed it. Muslim Pakistan never raised the issue because it was never
    in a position to host and absorb them. It would have simply collapsed, had India
    physically forced the Muslim Indians out into Pakistan.

    This is the first of a three-part series on the Partition of India by Syed
    Shahabuddin, a former member of the IFS who served as the Indian ambassador in
    several countries. He is also an erstwhile MP and the former editor of Muslim
    India. Currently he is the president, All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat.


    A Vision of a Muslim Corridor

    By Syed Shahabuddin
    Published in Arab News on Friday, Dec.21, 2012

    Another popular Muslim theory was propagated that Muslim concentration areas in
    the north, in Punjab, UP and Bihar, could form a corridor between East and West
    Pakistan. The theory was further extended by some to include the Hyderabad state
    which was ruled by the Nizam who aspired to be independent. All these were
    illusions. A look at the map will show that the few pockets of Muslim
    concentration in the north, namely, Mewat or Rohilkhand or Purnea, were far
    apart from each other and could hardly bridge the geographical gap between the
    two Pakistans and there was no reason for India to be generous enough to oblige
    Pakistan and make any special arrangement.

    Also anyone with a sense of history should have known that the Nizam could not
    rule forever in the age of democracy, as his people were 90 per cent non-Muslims
    and demanded to be a part of free India. Some misguided local Muslims, put their
    faith in the Nizam of Hyderabad and other Muslim Princes, soon realised that the
    Princes would all be consigned to the dustbin of history. The Nizams Army and
    the Razakars could not protect him. He finally surrendered to India and in 1957.
    Hyderabad was trifurcated on linguistic basis, with the three parts merged with
    Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.

    On the eve of partition, it is amazing to recall that a small section of the
    Muslims in India even believed that the creation of Pakistan was but a step
    towards another Muslim invasion and re-conquest of India! Fortunately the people
    who saw hope of security in Pakistan soon saw the stupidity of their own
    imagination. Pakistan would hardly take care of non-Punjabi refugees from UP or
    Bihar (except some elite and professionals); the settlement of Biharis in
    Karachi, in the so-called Bihar Colony, a low-lying area subject to floods,
    spoke for itself. The Biharis and UP-wallas continued to be margi-nalised in
    government service and professional education. First they were eased out of the
    administration. Today the Mohajireen applying for admission to professional
    courses are asked to indicate where their grandparents were born! Not
    surprising, many qualified Mohajireen have emigrated from Pakistan to the USA
    and the Gulf.

    In his negotiations with the Congress leadership or the British Government,
    Jinnah used the terms Muslim India and homeland for the Muslims of
    India, particularly after the Resolution adopted by the Muslim League
    National Council at its last meeting held in Delhi in 1946 which give final
    touchés to the Pakistan Resolution. Since 1940 Jinnah had not only spoken of
    Muslims as distinct from Hindus and other non-Muslims living in the
    subcontinent, but he had deliberately ignored the wide variation of language,
    culture and race as well as social organisation and economic status among
    Muslims living in various parts of the sub-continent. He loudly proclaimed the
    concept of Muslim India but no one asked him to define the term Muslim India and
    the concept of Muslim homeland and clarify whether it meant only the
    Muslims living in the majority provinces or included also those who lived in the
    minority provinces for record. In some statements
    after Pakistan was born, Jinnah went on to describe Muslims in India as ‘our

    In his negotiations with the Cabinet Mission, Jinnah rather brutally propounded
    the hostage theory but it collapsed when Punjab and Bengal were partitioned and
    West Punjab and East Bengal drained of the Hindus and the Sikhs. But Jinnah was
    too much of a jurist to envisage publicly that the Muslims who would continue to
    live in India on partition shall be in any legal sense Pakistani citizens
    residing India, with as much right to citizenship of Pakistan as the Pakistanis
    living and born there. Realistically Jinnah, even though he acknowledged the
    contribution of Muslim Indians to the making of Pakistan, never offered to open
    the doors of Pakistan, except to the selected protagonists of the Pakistan
    Movement. He was no Muslim Zionist who would accept the inherent right of
    any Muslim, anywhere in the subcontinent, to migrate to Pakistan.

    Some businessmen, particularly in Bombay and Calcutta, like the Memons, Bohras,
    Ismailis and Iranian, saw a promising field in Pakistan for business, free of
    competition from the Birlas and Dalmias. Many of them migrated to Pakistan and
    in collaboration with the local capital set up enterprises in both wings. They
    thought they would reap a bumper harvest because of their initiative and
    experience but soon they were overtaken by the Punjabi elite on one side and
    Bengali nationalism on the other. Some propertied classes had also migrated to
    Pakistan in the hope of getting a share of the vast properties left behind by
    the Hindu emigrants, in Lahore, Karachi and other cities.

    Some Urdu poets and writers thought of a glorious future in a state which was
    created in the name of Urdu. These included Baba-e-Urdu Moulvi Abdul Haque, and
    the great revolutionary poet, Josh Malihabadi.

    Many civil servants and Army officers, expecting rapid promotion in Pakistan to
    fill the vacuum, opted for Pakistan (but there were a few exceptions like Azim
    Hussain, ICS, and Major General Habibullah). They indeed went quickly up the
    ladder. For example, Ayub Khan, a Colonel in 1947, would not have become a
    General in united India nor Ghulam Mohammad, Choudhary Mohammad Ali and Iskandar
    Mirza reach the summit which they could not even visualize.

    Even some theologians migrated. Some of them thought of playing a big role in
    the politics of Pakistan which was propagated as the biggest Muslim state
    committed to Islam. These included great scholars like Abul Ala Maudoodi and
    Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani. Some returned, some emigrant Ulema established
    madarsas on the model of Deoband. These madarsas later, with US help and support
    of the Pakistan Army, produced the Taliban to take over Afghanistan and now
    threaten Pakistan itself.

    In a global sense, Jinnah was totally out of touch with reality. This became
    evident after the birth of Pakistan. By virtue of numbers Pakistan aspired to
    lead the Muslim world which included Muslim minorities in India and elsewhere.
    This pretension by the Pakistan leadership was rejected forthrightly and out of
    hand by all important Muslim countries including Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi
    Arabia. It was clear, and has been so for centuries, that Muslims who live
    across international borders do not constitute one nation in the political
    sense. The nation-state system depends on well-defined territory and borders.

    The net achievement of the Pakistan Move-ment was nothing more than to carve out
    of the subcontinent a territorial state with a Muslim majority. International
    law debunks and contradicts the so-called ideology of Pakistan. Its
    ideological foundations were so weak that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad predicted its
    break-up between east and west within 25 years of its formation.

    This is the second of a three-part series on the Partition of India.

    Reality of Pakistan After 60 Years

    By Syed Shahabuddin

    Published in Arab News on Tuesday, Dec. 25, 2012

    It is not surprising that after 60 years of existence, Pakistan has not been
    able to develop a sense of common nationhood or even social cohesion. It remains
    fragmented, as it is, among five or six different ethnic groups.

    Sectarian, linguistic and class differences, exploding into violence from time
    to time, it could not build up a viable system of Islamic laws. Even in the
    Malakand Division of FATA, including the Swat, the enforcement of Shariah, often
    praised by the Pakistani orthodoxy, is based on the British concession in the
    1930s to the tribals that the civil and criminal laws that operated in the
    subcontinent did not apply to their region.

    Finally, as conceived by Iqbal, Pakistan was to be a political laboratory for
    experimenting with an Islamic polity in the modern world or the evolution of
    Muslim jurisprudence to come to terms with modern life. Neither has made any
    progress. Nor has Pakistan ever achieved an Islamic personality.

    In Pakistan most of the laws now in force are the same as those in India. Not
    only from the legal point of view but even culturally, to the extent that Urdu
    is the language of the elite in Pakistan, and even religiously Pakistan is much
    closer to India than to any other part of the Muslim world.

    Most important, if 150 million Muslims continue to be equal citizens of India,
    occasional violence and persistent discrimination notwithstanding, the question
    is beginning to be asked not only in India but in Pakistan about the rationale
    for the division of the subcontinent.

    The Muslim community of the subcontinent, now divided into three states, would
    have not only prospered but lived more securely and made greater contribution in
    the realm of fine arts, science, humanities and sports, had their organic unity
    not been sacrificed at the altar of politics or, shall we say, the interest of
    the Muslim elite or the hurt ego of an individual, who at one time was one of
    the top leaders of the national freedom movement, and who was dropped like a fly
    in the ointment when he raised his voice against Hindu majoritorianism and asked
    for democratic safeguards and guarantees for the Muslims as the biggest

    Partition resulted from the failure of the freedom movement to evolve a formula
    acceptable to both communities.

    Nor did Pakistanis experience any cultural synthesis among the Bengalis, the
    Punjabis, the Sindhis, the Saraikis the Pakhtoons, the Balochis and the Biharis.
    Some of them speak Urdu but most prefer to use their own mother tongue. Some of
    them even agitate against Urdu being given the official language status. Even
    the great Urdu poet Faiz, a Left activist, led a precession in Lahore against
    Urdu becoming the sole language for official communication and the first
    language in schools. Just about five per cent of the people of Pakistan declare
    Urdu as their mother tongue.

    In 1960s Muslim Indians continued to trickle into East Pakistan on what was
    called the Gardania passport. After the explosion in East Pakistan, which
    created Bangladesh, the “Bihari” Muslims in substantial numbers crossed the
    border to take refuge in India, sometimes escorted by the Indian Army. The
    interesting aspect is that when they reached their original villages, their
    Hindu neighbors welcomed them, albeit with a touch of sarcasm but no hostility.
    Indeed it is their own relatives who became apprehensive that the returnees may
    dispute their possession of the entire family property and reported them to the
    authorities. Hardly any cases were report by the Hindu neighbors.

    In a united subcontinent the Muslims would today number about 450 million out of
    a total population of about 1800 million. Almost half the national territory
    would be covered by Muslim concentration states and districts. In a federal
    Indian polity, these Muslim pockets would enjoy almost complete autonomy but, as
    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad put it, they neither achieved an Islamic homeland nor
    equal citizenship in the country of their birth. In the reorganization of
    states, the Sikhs got the Sikh state; the tribals got many tribal states and
    some are struggling for more. But the support Muslims extended in the 1940s to
    the Pakistan Movement has not been forgotten. Hindu communalism has opposed the
    reorganization of pockets of Muslim concentration as in Purnea or Rohilkhand or
    Marathwada or Malda or Murshidabad in West Bengal. Even the areas in which the
    Muslims form 30 to 40 percent of the population continue to face hostility,
    distrust and underdevelopment.

    Perhaps the Muslims of united India would have been better received.

    Yes, Muslim Indians continue to be silently dubbed in India as Pakistanis and
    perceived increasingly as terrorists. They live in fear; their muhallas are
    under close observation in a state of siege by the state. These are occasionally
    targeted by majoritarian violence; the last genocide occurred in Gujarat in
    2002. But their population continuously grows and today they constitute roughly
    15 percent of the national population.

    Unfortunately without proportional representation in central or state
    legislatures or in administration or even in the Panchayti Raj institutions,
    they do not enjoy real power. And when they speak of discrimination, they are
    advised to leave India and go to Pakistan if they are not happy.

    What Muslims lost in 1947 is incalculable and the possibilities of their
    development have been stunted by the very existence of Pakistan. Over the last
    60 years, Muslim Indians have suffered and survived, they have proved their
    resilience, a capacity to rise from the ashes to build a community, which, to
    quote Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, is as proud of being Indian as it is of being
    Muslim. As India develops, Muslim Indians are also developing though not in the
    same measure. But an objective look on cities, towns, qasbas or even villages
    will show, they have made marked progress educationally, economically and
    socially. There are no doubt pockets of backward-ness and deprivation. The virus
    of Hindu majoritarianism has entered the bloodstream of the Indian nation. But
    secular forces would not let it deny constitutional equality and social justice
    to the Muslim Indians.

    Partition was thus ill-conceived and became a bad bargain for the Muslims in the
    Muslim minority provinces of British India. Indeed it may turn out to be a
    tragedy. It also continues to cast an ominous shadow over their future because
    the anti-Muslim forces in India, without any rhyme or reason, continue to
    consider the present generation of Muslims as responsible for the creation of
    Pakistan and look upon them as Pakistanis or Pakistani sympathizers and in any
    situation of conflict between the two states, as political aliens and at least
    fifth columnists.

    This is the last of a three-part series on the Partition of India published
    in Arab News, Saudi Arabia's leading English newspaper.

    The following are some of the letters/comments that have been posted on our
    website ( and published in our newspaper:

    Partition of India

    I read with a greater interest all of the three columns by Syed Shahabuddin on
    the partition of India. His analysis was very balanced and indeed factual. Every
    sentence echoed my feeling and the feelings of a greater majority that partition
    was a grave mistake and led to a colossal loss for all of the communities and
    more so for the Indian Muslims. Shahabuddin has very rightly concluded that the
    organic unity of different Muslim communities had been sacrificed at the altar
    of politics. In fact, I agree more with his latter argument that it was more to
    do with the selfish interest of the Muslim elite or the hurt ego of an
    individual. It is unimaginable that the Muslim leadership of that time was so
    self centered and possessed to gain control over power that they just did not
    allow any thought process to cultivate or listen to the voices opposed to
    partition. One of the glaring examples of their thoughtless approach was the
    attempt to have East Bengal that
    has no congruous borders and lying thousands of miles away from the mainland in
    the folds of Pakistan. It was destined to fail and unfortunately that partition
    also resulted in mass killings, violence and wider destruction of property.

    It is a hard fact that sectarian riots and disturbances in Pakistan are not
    lesser than what has been witnessed in India. Despite having a common religious
    ground, the different communities remained divided on other bases: sects,
    language, regions etc. Whatever the form of government, the feudal and capital
    forces never allowed the masses to grow and prosper. The compounded effect of
    differences and discrimination resulted in weaker governance and allowed the
    militants to gain strength. Certainly, a united India would have been more
    powerful in dealing with such issues and not only the Subcontinent, but, the
    whole South Asian region would have progressed and prospered faster. In fact,
    there would have been more balanced power equation and curtailed the American
    hegemony to a larger extent.

    Shahabuddin was very right in stating and predicting that the secular forces in
    India will never allow the fundamentalism to take deeper roots or ground. In
    general, the Muslim masses in India have prospered better than their brethren on
    the other side of the border and have very good prospects. A pragmatic approach
    is required now and they must align more and more with the mainstream rather
    than allowing themselves to live on the fringes with preoccupied notions and

    Safi H. Jannaty

    No Need to Mourn Partition

    I was amazed to see a series of articles entitled “Partition of India” by
    Syed Shahabuddin in your esteemed paper. While I believe that it is the right of
    every individual to express her/his opinion on a topic, it was certainly not
    very appropriate to provide so much space to an Indian national to question the
    existence of Pakistan as a separate state and the rationale for its creation.

    Had the author chosen to restrict himself to discussing Pakistan-India relations
    and Pakistan’s foreign policy, it would have been understandable.

    Yes, Pakistan has its problems and divides. However, like any other country,
    it’s for Pakistani citizens to deal with the situation. We certainly do not
    welcome a national of another country telling us that the very existence of a
    country was the root cause of the problem.
    It appears that the writer, as well as those supporting his viewpoint, belong to
    an old generation far removed from the contemporary realities. The young
    generation of Pakistanis has a distinct identity shaped and defined by
    independent existence of Pakistan for more than six decades now. We have
    challenges to overcome, but that does not stop us from cherishing our distinct
    nationality. India might be doing well but we would still like to be identified
    as Pakistanis as a proud and independent nation without feeling the need for
    mourning partition.

    And for once, let a young Pakistani make it clear that our distinct identity as
    a nation state for the last six decades has inculcated in us an outlook of life
    which is very different from the Indian Muslims. We do feel different from them.
    Our governance is our business and the realities of India which the Indian
    Muslims have to face is their business. They would do better to not try to teach
    the Pakistanis what they have lost by the way of partition of India. For once,
    let it be clear that the younger generation of Pakistanis does not harbor any
    wish to patronize Indian Muslims nor does it appreciate patronage by the ilk of
    Maulana Azad.

    Kamran Akhtar


    Partition of India

    This has reference to letter by Kamran Akhter (Arab News, Dec. 27) questioning
    the need to revisit the partition of India.

    Every historian and columnist has a right to analyze historical facts and
    introspect them in retrospect. Syed Shahabuddin did exactly the same and rightly
    questioned the wisdom of the Muslim leadership who got blinded by the greed for
    power. Further unless one studies the consequences or the results of a decision,
    it is not possible to arrive at a fair conclusion. Therefore, it was essential
    to examine the true situation on the ground after 60 years of partition. It is
    not a question of an Indian questioning the existence of Pakistan nor was the
    writer’s contention that the existence is the root cause of the problem.

    I would certainly not have mourned partition if that had not resulted in
    uprooting hundreds of thousands of families from their homeland. I would not
    have shed tears if the partition had not involved mass migration from both sides
    of the border that witnessed a large-scale killing, violence and destruction.

    Each and every national has full right to be proud of his motherland and
    Pakistanis are no exception, yet, none can change the fact that the nation was
    created out of a partition which had turned out to be very painful for those who
    migrated from both the sides whether voluntarily or forcefully and also for the
    ones who bore the brunt of revenge.

    The Indian Muslims too are proud to be a part of a country whose democratic and
    secular foundation have stood the test of all times and they will continue to
    prosper and progress by integrating more and more in the mainstream.

    Safi H Jannaty


    Partition Was a Blessing

    This is in response to the letter “No need to mourn partition” (Dec. 27) by
    Kamran Akhtar.

    As a Pakistani, he is justified in shedding light on the predicament of
    Pakistanis and their mindset, which is distinct from that of Indian Muslims.
    While the problems that Muslims face in India, especially the bigotry from the
    extreme right Hindus who spare no opportunity to humiliate Muslims there, the
    partition cannot be blamed for their situation forever. Both in India and
    Pakistan, the Muslims, those who chose to remain and those who decided to move
    for better opportunities, have had to face challenges and find ways to overcome
    them. Pakistan needs to be credited for still being in existence 60 years on,
    despite a spate of bombings, insincere leadership, corrupt system and poor

    At the same time Indian Muslims also need to be given due credit for maintaining
    their identity in the country. Either way, one cannot blame the other. After
    all, decisions of partition or reunions are not done at the behest of the masses
    but by powers beyond the reach of the common man. The public has no recourse but
    to go with the flow. So while Syed Shahabuddin may be right on many points, to
    say that the partition was a mistake for Indian Muslims, he should perhaps
    consider the viewpoints of people of his generation who felt that there
    couldn’t be a greater blessing.

    Pakistani youth are a vibrant community, well aware of their situation both
    within Pakistan and their place on the global map. Despite the bad press
    concerning Pakistan, they carry themselves with dignity and are proud of being

    Ozma Siddiqui


    Don't Blame It on Partition

    Recent articles on partition of the subcontinent have been interesting. To
    discuss merits and demerits of the partition now after 65 years of reality are
    only of academic interest. Pakistan and Bangladesh being smaller nations to
    govern should have done better economically than much diverse and bigger India.

    The partition should have been taken by Pakistan as devolution of powers to
    other distinctly different religious-based societies, and easier to govern,
    instead civil wars and massive bloodshed followed which further partitioned West
    and East Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now Pakistan instead of being a
    beckon of Muslims all over the world is battling all sorts of secessionist,
    militant and anarchist forces all over the nation.

    While successive Indian leaderships strived to strengthen secularism, Pakistan
    was overcome with xenophobia, fundamentalism, and militancy due to frustrations
    arising from poor governance, nepotism and rampant corruption.

    The theocracy basis of Pakistan has completely failed and the country has
    degenerated into ethnic and sectarian strife, resulting in regular
    indiscriminate bombing and target killings. Many Pakistani politicians use
    religion to arouse public support, by invoking so-called external threats, which
    distract public from otherwise their own abject failures. The contemporary ethos
    of Hindu majority India has shown to be more of democracy, pluralism and general
    tolerance than of majority Muslim Pakistan.

    Seif A. Somalya


    The Other Side

    I read the articles of Syed Shahabuddin on partition of India with interest and
    the subsequent letters to the editors. A lot has been said about partition. But
    unfortunately, so many facts were intentionally or due to lack of knowledge
    concealed, highlighting just one side of the picture. Mohammad Ali Jinnah has
    been wrongly blamed for the partition of India, not mentioning the harsh reality
    that forced him and millions of Muslims all over India to take his path.

    Mohammad Ali Jinnah worked really toward bringing about Hindu-Muslim unity,
    which he rightly considered “the most vital condition of Swaraj.” However,
    the Hindus mainly because of Nehru, failed to accept the genuine demands of the
    Muslims and Jinnah’s efforts came to naught.

    The Congress’ blank refusal to accept Muslim demands represented the most
    devastating setback to Jinnah’s life long efforts to bring about Hindu-Muslim
    unity, it meant “the last straw” for the Muslims and “the parting of the
    ways” for him, as he confessed to a Parsee friend at that time. Jinnah, was
    not left with any option but to quit All India Congress.

    Babar Mumtaz


    The Binding Force Is Islam

    Shahabuddin sahab!

    The division in terms of classes, language you described for Pakistan is not so
    much different for the Indian Muslims.

    Muslims from one part of India also discriminate their brothers from other part
    of India.

    Its unavoidable human nature.

    Secondly, the sympathies of Indian Muslims lies with their Pakistani brothers
    cannot be questioned considering the binding force is Islam.

    Pakistan too has a lot of Hindus, but i believe the Indian Hindus wont have the
    same feelings as the Muslims on both sides have, for each other.

    Thirdly, people always talk about the short coming in Pakistan. Have you taken
    out time to go through the achievements, considering the fact that Pakistan was
    created 60 years back, but India already had a infrastructure.

    Ahmed Baig


    One-Sided Arguments

    It is unwise for an ex-ambassador and a senior journalist to throw malicious
    propaganda against Pakistan and Muslims. After decades of suppression from the
    British and the Hindus, the I00 million Muslims formally chose to break away. In
    1945, the collective decision was ratified under a state wide referendum managed
    by the Biritsh authorities. The referendum proved the democratic decision of 100
    million Muslims to establish a separate Islamic state. I pity those people who
    despite being learned are showing illiteracy and hatred against Pakistan.
    Honourable Mr. Shahabuddin, your arguments are one sided.

    Shamim Faiz

    Don't Underestimate Pakistan

    First, making Pakistan was not a mistake. I agree that Pakistan is going through
    tremendous troubles more due to its own doing and to some extent outside

    Of course there have been a lot of mistakes made by Pakistani leadership and
    they continue to make them... They joined in a few international adventures,
    (Like Soviet-Afghan War etc) which eventually put them into this state of
    upheaval. As a matter of fact Pakistan was way ahead of India and many other
    Asian nations in economic growth in its first 21 years. Check the World Bank
    Economic report of 1968. Pakistan started from scratch while India got a
    ready-made infrastructure. Today's Indian growth is owed mainly to trillions of
    dollars of foreign investment. You name any international brand name and their
    headquarter is in Bangalore or Delhi. If you give a million dollar to one
    brother and give just a few hundreds as charity to the other brother, of course
    the brother with million dollars will make quicker progress. (Now don't tell me
    that India deserved it because they have better brains are skills.)

    I know pretty well both Pakistanis and Indians and Pakistanis are no less than
    Indians in IQ or knowledge. This is a sorry state that Pakistan despite making
    great sacrifices in the terms of life, money and peace got nothing after the
    liquidation of Soviet power. Pakistan played the front role in the war which
    ended in the collapse of Soviet Union and its communism. While other countries
    especially India reaped the benefits of post-communist expansion of global
    economic capitalism. I will never accept that making Pakistan was a mistake due
    to many facts. I have directly heard from my mother, the stories of Hindu's
    "untouchable" and class systems and lower treatment of Muslims in the
    pre-partition India. Even if India was not divided, Hindus due to their majority
    and past thousand years of Muslim rule, would not forgive them and continue to
    treat them as inferior. Indian Muslims could never get full free status. How
    could you undo the history of 1000
    years. Indian Muslims would remain in an inferiority complex just as they live
    today. You can see it evident in the demeanor of Indian migrant Muslims abroad.
    Despite coming out of India they are very cowardice and cautious in day to day
    living. Pakistanis are bold and outgoing. Indian Muslims live with an attitude
    not like free people.

    Don't you be misled and underestimate Pakistan by Indian progress. Pakistan will
    return to normal. It is going through a transformation. his is just matter of
    time when they finally get sincere leadership which understands the basic values
    and purpose of the creation of Pakistan. Once they overcome the menace of
    terrorism and corruption, which is not very far. Pakistan still has a lot
    potential. And you Indian Muslims will one day be proud of Pakistan and will
    regret that your ancestors chose to live in Hindu dominant India.


  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    I love to read your posts , but they are to long.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Maripat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Source of Breeze

    Default Re: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    I am interested in knowing whether it is a complement or a criticism?
    (It is copy pasted from some where with some effort at editing.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member Servant.of.Allah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    on land

    Default Re: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    Muslims were the first to protest. India/Bangladesh/Pakistan is independant today from the British MAMAS because of Muslim's ignition.

    If Muslims were quiet, now our President would be Lord Wellington Hawkins Gayle and Queen would be Queen Jessica Stella.
    Our Nation .... We were not like the xyz who started learning German during World War when Germany was closer to Victory.

    We work for Allah alone... Allah hu akbar

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: Muslims and Freedom Struggle of India

    Plz read
    1:Ulma e Hind ka shandar mazi 2:tehrik reshmi rumal


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts