Yet in 1857 the Indians or at least a part of them both Hindus and Muslims combined and made one very desperate yet valiant effort to oust the British. Till this time the Hindus acknowledged the Muslim political supremacy since we see the Bengal Army which was predominantly Hindu, fighting for Muslim sovereigns at Delhi and in Oudh!
But when this great rebellion failed there was the parting of the ways! The Muslims of the post-1857 had no choice but to please the British to avoid Hindu domination!
The Hindu’s problems had completely ended!
All they had to do was to play a waiting game.
They knew that one day the British will have to go and then they, the ones who had been ruled and subjugated by a minority from the 12th century till almost the 18th century would dominate the Indo-Pak sub- continent, just like they were about to do around 1799 and till 1803 when the EEIC challenged the Hindu Mahratta rule!
The Muslim post-1857 problems were more complex, they had to escape Hindu domination and they also had to face the British.
The policy they adopted after 1857 was “Loyalty to the British”.
War of Independence 1857 (Indian Revolt 1857)Haroon Khaliq
It is a power point work on the Indian mutiny of 1857 or the Indian attempt to gain self rule against British. If you do not get the concept from this work you can watch the video at last.
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 refers to a rebellion in India against the rule of the British East India Company, that ran from May 1857 to June 1858. The rebellion began as a mutiny of sepoys of the East India Company's army on 10 May 1857, in the cantonment of the town of Meerut, and soon escalated into other mutinies and civilian rebellions largely in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, with the major hostilities confined to present-day Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northern Madhya Pradesh, and the Delhi region.[2] The rebellion posed a considerable threat to East India Company power in that region,[3] and was contained only with the fall of Gwalior on 20 June 1858.[2] The rebellion is also known as India's First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, the Rebellion of 1857, the Uprising of 1857, the Sepoy Rebellion, the Indian Insurrection and the Sepoy Mutiny.
War of Independence 1857 (Indian Revolt 1857)Haroon Khaliq
It is a power point work on the Indian mutiny of 1857 or the Indian attempt to gain self rule against British. If you do not get the concept from this work you can watch the video at last.
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 refers to a rebellion in India against the rule of the British East India Company, that ran from May 1857 to June 1858. The rebellion began as a mutiny of sepoys of the East India Company's army on 10 May 1857, in the cantonment of the town of Meerut, and soon escalated into other mutinies and civilian rebellions largely in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, with the major hostilities confined to present-day Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northern Madhya Pradesh, and the Delhi region.[2] The rebellion posed a considerable threat to East India Company power in that region,[3] and was contained only with the fall of Gwalior on 20 June 1858.[2] The rebellion is also known as India's First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, the Rebellion of 1857, the Uprising of 1857, the Sepoy Rebellion, the Indian Insurrection and the Sepoy Mutiny.
Causes of failure: The war of independence 1857Arifa
Causes of failure of the war of independence PROCLAMATION/DECLARATION OF 1857
The rulers of different states of Indo-Pakistan
The British succeeded
Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Indian King, had no experience of fighting a war
British army was highly organized, trained, disciplined and experienced
Martial races theory and its consequences myths and misconceptions of indo p...Agha A
The theory was based on “Punjab and Frontier” loyalty factor of 1857. Its most serious proponent was Lord Roberts563 the British
C-in-C in India. When I joined the army in 1981 I observed that many of the officers and soldiers serving in Pakistan Army were convinced that the races or castes living in the area between Chenab and Indus Rivers were martial. Some Pathans originating from the NWFP were also regarded as junior partners of these martial races!
A cursory glance at the history of Indo-Pak subcontinent is enough for even a layman to understand that most of the invasions of India took place originating from areas north of Khyber Pass or west of Quetta i.e. Persia etc. The Mughals after 1526 recruited from Hindu Rajputs, Muslim Pathans, Muslim Rajputs, some Muslim Punjabis and Muslim Baloch, but the preference was given to trans-Indus races, mostly Pathans or Persian speaking, or to Hindu Rajputs.
The EEIC since it made its entry from the east had no choice but to recruit from Oudh parts of Bihar North West Provinces Madras Bombay Central India etc. In the earlier part of this work we have seen that using a predominantly Hindu army recruited from the Gangetic plain and led by British officers the pre-1857 Bengal Army defeated all races of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan etc. The Bombay Army of Hindu Mahrattas quickly made Persia behave! A couple of Bengal Army Regiments reinforced by an odd European regiment successfully defended Kandahar and Jallalabad against vastly superior forces.
The rebellion of 1857 changed British perceptions and keeping in view the political reliability as well as the administrative convenience factor the British decided to recruit mostly from the north west i.e. Punjab and Frontier provinces of India and the Gurkhas from Nepal. This change started from 1857 but became significant only around 1895.
Even reliability was not the only factor. Because the Madras and Bombay Armies had also stayed loyal. Still based on personal bias felt by Lord Roberts and under his influence by some other British senior officers the recruitment policy was changed. In general following 1857 the British adopted the policy of non-reliance on any particular race and even the Punjabi Muslims and the Pathans who had remained stand were mixed with other castes and religious communities only the Gurkhas were grouped together or certain Muzhbi Sikh Regiments. An experiment of having pure Muslim or pure Hindu Rajput regiments from 1893 but abandoned by 1919, keeping in view the mutinies of 5th Light Infantry and 15 Lancers at Singapore /Mesopotamia.
Pakistan has emerged as one of history's altitudes commanding a vast field of vision stretching back and forward. The victor could reconcile as little to their existence as could they to the changed order
British exaggerations myths of indo pak history part 6Agha A
Was The Rebellion Inevitable
The rebellion was not inevitable but was the result of a series of administrative and policy decisions made in a period of two decades.
Dalhousie’s basic policy was sound. He was administratively annexing regions which had been politically and militarily conquered and defeated long ago.
But Dalhousie’s pace of annexation was fast. His modus operandi of routine administration and dealing with the Indian native princes as well as the British officials was rash. His treatment of the CinC Charles Napier was unjust. His perceptions regarding Oudh were by and large correct but the manner in which he dealt with Oudh was not correct.
Being the man on the spot he should have actively decided that immediate annexation was not the answer. But he suggested to the Directors of EEIC a number of options including annexation which they selected.
Thus he made the Directors take a decision about which they had little first hand knowledge. Sleeman had prophetically warned Dalhousie that annexation of Oudh would have a very negative effect on the sepoys who were almost 50 to 60% part of the Bengal Infantry.
Despite all this we must not forget that the foundation of an educated and aware Indian middle class was laid essentially by Macaulay and Dalhousie rather than by any Indian Hindu or Muslim.
The three universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were foundations of an Indian educated middle class. The British had resolved to introduce western education in India before 1857 and both Hindus and Muslims were to acquire if, even if Sayyid Ahmad Khan had died fighting for the rebel cause at Bijnor!
war of independence : 1857
the revolt was the first independence war but the British said This is the rebellion, mutiny.this war is between the Indian soldiers and British Indian army .
Battle of Gangiri-Heavy Price paid by HM 6 Dragoon Guards for Gallantry Agha A
Battle of Gangiri-Heavy Price paid by HM 6 Dragoon Guards for Gallantry https://www.academia.edu/52632772/Battle_of_Gangiri_Heavy_Price_paid_by_HM_6_Dragoon_Guards_for_Gallantry via @academia
WHY PAKISTAN ARMY OR INDIAN ARMY CAN NEVER PRODUCE A MUSTAFA KAMAL- SOMETHING...Agha A
WHY PAKISTAN ARMY OR INDIAN ARMY CAN NEVER PRODUCE A MUSTAFA KAMAL- SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG IN THE GENES
April 2020
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20723.27689
Project: MILITARY HISTORY
Agha H Amin
Chatty Kathy - UNC Bootcamp Final Project Presentation - Final Version - 5.23...John Andrews
SlideShare Description for "Chatty Kathy - UNC Bootcamp Final Project Presentation"
Title: Chatty Kathy: Enhancing Physical Activity Among Older Adults
Description:
Discover how Chatty Kathy, an innovative project developed at the UNC Bootcamp, aims to tackle the challenge of low physical activity among older adults. Our AI-driven solution uses peer interaction to boost and sustain exercise levels, significantly improving health outcomes. This presentation covers our problem statement, the rationale behind Chatty Kathy, synthetic data and persona creation, model performance metrics, a visual demonstration of the project, and potential future developments. Join us for an insightful Q&A session to explore the potential of this groundbreaking project.
Project Team: Jay Requarth, Jana Avery, John Andrews, Dr. Dick Davis II, Nee Buntoum, Nam Yeongjin & Mat Nicholas
Data Centers - Striving Within A Narrow Range - Research Report - MCG - May 2...pchutichetpong
M Capital Group (“MCG”) expects to see demand and the changing evolution of supply, facilitated through institutional investment rotation out of offices and into work from home (“WFH”), while the ever-expanding need for data storage as global internet usage expands, with experts predicting 5.3 billion users by 2023. These market factors will be underpinned by technological changes, such as progressing cloud services and edge sites, allowing the industry to see strong expected annual growth of 13% over the next 4 years.
Whilst competitive headwinds remain, represented through the recent second bankruptcy filing of Sungard, which blames “COVID-19 and other macroeconomic trends including delayed customer spending decisions, insourcing and reductions in IT spending, energy inflation and reduction in demand for certain services”, the industry has seen key adjustments, where MCG believes that engineering cost management and technological innovation will be paramount to success.
MCG reports that the more favorable market conditions expected over the next few years, helped by the winding down of pandemic restrictions and a hybrid working environment will be driving market momentum forward. The continuous injection of capital by alternative investment firms, as well as the growing infrastructural investment from cloud service providers and social media companies, whose revenues are expected to grow over 3.6x larger by value in 2026, will likely help propel center provision and innovation. These factors paint a promising picture for the industry players that offset rising input costs and adapt to new technologies.
According to M Capital Group: “Specifically, the long-term cost-saving opportunities available from the rise of remote managing will likely aid value growth for the industry. Through margin optimization and further availability of capital for reinvestment, strong players will maintain their competitive foothold, while weaker players exit the market to balance supply and demand.”
Myths and misconceptions of indo pak history part 8
1. Political Myths of Pakistan -
Myths and Misconceptions of
Indo Pak Political and
Military History-PART EIGHT
About the Author
About the Author Agha H. Amin , Retired Tank corps major
who served in five tank regiments and commanded an
independent tank squadron and served in various staff ,
instructional and research assignments. In his Pakistan Army
tenure he wrote three original tactical papers on
Reconnaissance Troops Tactical handling, Reconnaissance
support group , and RFS Concept. His writings were published
in Pakistan Armys prime journals , Pakistan Army Journal and
Citadel Journal of Command and Staff College Quetta. His
recommendations regarding bifurcation of officer corps into
command and staff cadre advanced in 1998 were later
accepted. In addition his recommendation of grouping various
corps into army commands advanced in an article published in
Citadel Journal in 1998 were accepted in 2005 or so. Wrote
The Essential Clausewitz in 1993, Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59
in 1998 , Pakistan Army till 1965 in 1999 ,Development of
Taliban Factions in Afghanistan and Pakistan (2010) ,Taliban
War in Afghanistan (2009). Served as Assistant Editor of
Defence Journal ,Executive Editor of globe and Founder Editor
2. of Journal of Afghanistan Studies . An associate of the think
tanks ORBAT and Alexandrian Defense group. Carried out
various oil and gas and power transmission line surveys in
West Asia. Editor in Chief of monthly Intelligence Review and
monthly Military and Security Review. Heads the think tank
Centre for study of Intelligence Operations established in early
2010.
3.
4. Even the Muslim League which won the elections in 1946 in Punjab or in Sindh
was little more than a bunch of opportunists who changed their loyalties from
Unionist to Muslim League, simply because they very correctly sensed that the
average Muslim would vote for the Muslim League simply because of the
immense emotional appeal of the “Pakistan Slogan” in the post-1940 and pre-
1947 period !
“Opportunism” and “Unconditional Loyalty to the British” were two hallmarks
of the post-1857 Muslim leadership. The simple reason for this state of affairs
was fear of Hindu domination and a very potent fear that they would lose all
5. their privileges by the introduction of a system of western democracy which the
British were bringing to India slowly and gradually in the post-1857 period.
In the Muslim majority provinces this fear was less whereas in the Muslim
minority provinces this fear was greater. What the Indian Muslims failed to
understand was that fear is no rational response to a problem.
If it was so there would have been no fear of Punjabi domination in East
Pakistan or fear of Bengali domination in West Pakistan! Even today the fear of
Punjabi domination is a far greater threat to the average Sindhi or Baloch than
fear of Indian domination!
Emotional slogans can galvanize the populace for some time but they cannot
bring for them peace and prosperity in the long run.
The widely believed notions of intellectual superiority of UP Muslims and the
martial prowess of Punjabi Muslims are merely myths and have absolutely no
historical basis.
Both of the communities should be grateful to the British in this regard i.e. the
Upites to the British for bringing in western education by establishing
universities / colleges and in enabling the Aligarh MAO College to rise and
prosper.
The Punjabi Muslims for the great irrigation system that the British established
in Punjab and for recruiting the Punjabi Muslims in greater numbers in the army
in the post-1857 scenario something which has at least till 1998 enabled the
Punjabi Muslims to dominate Pakistan and to make sure that the Bengalis had
no choice but to secede.
6. But the British did one very clever thing which has hampered us. They made
sure that the most spineless and worthless toadies should lead the Indian
Muslims in general and the Martial Muslims in particular! Through some very
profound and subtle system they ensured mediocrity in higher Muslim ranks.
The Hindu of post-1857 India was a more confident man than the Muslim. The
Hindu knew that the British had to take him seriously just because of the sheer
weight of numbers. If the British wanted to rule India in peace they had to
appease the Hindu for he constituted the great majority.
Thus unfortunately while the Muslim in post-1857 period was taking every
possible pain to prove his loyalty to the British for fear of Hindu domination,
keeping in view the introduction of western democracy based on majority of
votes, the Hindu was now a much more confident man.
He knew that whatever happens a Hindu would lead the post-British India. Thus
while a culture based on loyalty to the British was being actively adopted by the
Muslims in both the Punjab and UP and in all other Muslim majority or Muslim
minority provinces the Hindu was thinking big.
He needed less of Hinduism while a Muslim needed much more of Islam in the
post- 1857 scenario. The Hindu thus posed as the natural leader of the native
public opinion in India. It is not to imply that this happened due to advent of the
British.
Even if the British had not come to India, it is a simple fact of history that the
non- Muslims in the shape of Mahrattas and Sikhs were dominating India by
7. 799. The British actually saved the Muslims from Mahratta or Sikh
domination.
Who can deny that the Sikhs kicked the Afghans out of Punjab and NWFP
entirely based on their indigenous martial prowess? Who can deny that the
Mughals were destroyed primarily due to the Mahratta guerrilla wars!
The predators like Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali were half vultures; for
the Mughal Empire they destroyed had already been half destroyed by the
Mahrattas.
Thus we see the EEIC first saving Oudh from the Mahrattas and then gobbling
it up.
Similarly the western UP Muslims were liberated from Mahratta domination
by General Lake in 1803!
8. General Gerard Lake who captured Delhi from Marathas in 1803
The Bahawalpur state was saved by the Treaty of Amritsar of 1809 which
discouraged Ranjit Singh from extending east of Sutlej.
9. Maharaja Ranjit Singh
Similarly, the Ameers of Sindh were saved from Ranjit Singh who would have
swallowed them within one winter campaign!
10. Punjab in 1809 when the English East India Company vide Treaty of Amritsar
11. imposed a bar on Ranjit Singh from expanding south of Sutlej River and saved
the Muslim states of Bahawalpur and Sindh .Even then Bahawalpur leased DG
Khan to the Sikhs for money !
Yet in 1857 the Indians or at least a part of them both Hindus and Muslims
combined and made one very desperate yet valiant effort to oust the British. Till
this time the Hindus acknowledged the Muslim political supremacy since we
see the Bengal Army which was predominantly Hindu, fighting for Muslim
sovereigns at Delhi and in Oudh!
But when this great rebellion failed there was the parting of the ways! The
Muslims of the post-1857 had no choice but to please the British to avoid Hindu
domination!
The Hindu’s problems had completely ended!
All they had to do was to play a waiting game.
They knew that one day the British will have to go and then they, the ones who
had been ruled and subjugated by a minority from the 12th century till almost
the 18th century would dominate the Indo-Pak sub- continent, just like they
were about to do around 1799 and till 1803 when the EEIC challenged the
Hindu Mahratta rule!
12. The Muslim post-1857 problems were more complex, they had to escape Hindu
domination and they also had to face the British.
The policy they adopted after 1857 was “Loyalty to the British”.
Sir Syed preached it at every forum. When the Sultan of Turkey during the
Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 claimed to be the Khalifa (Caliph) of all
Muslims and the Mullahs (Priests) of Mecca issued an appeal on the behalf of
Sultan of Turkey for assistance in fighting the Christians.619
Sir Syed dismissed the appeal for assistance in the following words. “The
Sultan of Turkey had no right to be Khalifa”, Sir Syed further explained
dismissing the Turkish claim saying that not a single Indian Muslim considered
the Sultan of Turkey to be Caliph of all Muslims620.
During the second Afghan war of 1878-80 also Sir Syed justified the British
role in thrashing the Afghans. When Alexandria in Egypt was bombarded by
British ships in 882 Sir Syed again took considerable pains in dismissing any
pro-Egyptian solidarity on part of Indian Muslims through the medium of the
“Aligarh Institute Gazette”621.
The fact that Sir Syed adopted sycophancy and ultraloyalism to the British as a
creed outwardly seems nothing more than “docility” or “appeasement”.
But here again there was a very big difference between Sir Syed and a Tiwana
or a Chattari or a Mahmudabad Raja. These feudals were doing all the
bootlicking for their personal gains and riches while Sir Syed was pursuing a
13. pro-British policy keeping in view of the consequent gains for Muslims as a
community.
Sir Syed’s aim was collective good of the Muslims as a community while the
Tiwana or Noon or Hayat aim was personal gain.
This brings us to a conceptual road block or sandbar which has confused the
vast majority of Indo- Pak historians in treating Sir Syed’s role vis-a-vis the
1857 “Rebels”.
The “Rebels” were right in their own way. They pursued the course of “Armed
Insurrection” but failed, though in a subtle way they succeeded in certain
aspects, which we will discuss in later paragraphs. The situation in 1858 was
complex, “The Indians had attempted an Armed Insurrection but had failed”.
The Hindus took a very active part in the rebellion but stood to lose little since
they were the majority and the British could not offend them.
The Muslims were less numerous in the Bengal Army and only constituted
some 25% of the “rebel sepoys” but they had been the leaders thanks to their
“cavalry regiments” which took the real initiative and were predominantly
Muslim. Further, the main centres of resistance where some 90% of the total
casualties occurred were Muslim political centres of Delhi and Lucknow.
The Muslims were thus the main losers since they were in the limelight and it
was easier to persecute them since they were only a minority i.e. some 15 to
20% in UP and Central India, the two regions which were the main culprits in
the British eyes.
14. The Muslims had to somehow carry on and how they could do it was
complicated, at least in the period 1858-78. Sir Syed saw the problem, took it by
the horns and arrived at a tangible concrete solution through which to rescue the
Indian Muslims in general and the UP and Central Indian Muslims in particular.
Sir Syed’s efforts to please the British and to brand the sepoys of 1857 was need
of the day.
Sir Syed adopted this as a deliberate pragmatic and calculated policy to pacify
and cool down the immense anti-Muslim sentiments harboured by the large
majority of the British in the decades following 1857 against Hindustani
Muslims in particular and other Muslims in which the tribal Pathans were the
foremost in general.
It is true that this British bias was regional since the Punjabi Muslims had as a
group with few exceptions like the indomitable Ahmad Khan Kharal activity
assisted the British in suppressing the rebellion.
This subtle point is missed by various historians while analysing the post-1857
period. The British perceptions of the Muslims differed from province to
province.
In Punjab even after 1857 the British were the principal saviours of the Punjabi
Muslims from the landlords who in all probability would have destroyed them
had Thorburn and others not actively lobbied the Muslim cause and ensured that
various legislative proposals which protected Muslim land from Hindu money
lenders were successfully accepted as laws.
Even in UP the British cultivated the Muslims because they were regarded as
too important to be ignored. After all many UP feudals both Hindus and
Muslims had stayed loyal just like the Punjabi feudals.
15. In Oudh and Rohailkhand, it was a different case since British authority had
totally disappeared from July 1857 to almost March 1858.
The Talukdars were forced to join the Sepoys.
Many of the Talukdars however, did genuinely join the sepoys in Oudh and
these were the ones who did not return from Nepal in 1858 even after an
amnesty had been proclaimed and their previously confiscated states had been
restored.
Many UP Muslims notably the Nawab of Rampur, Loharu Pataudi etc. stayed
loyal. Actually while the sepoys leadership was largely Muslim most of the
Talukdars who joined the sepoys were Hindu Rajputs.
Thus even statistically speaking the Muslim feudals of UP except those
of Delhi territory specially Aligarh, Meerut and Saharanpur remained by and
large loyal. These included the Sherwani family of Aligarh, the Nawab of
Pahasu etc. So even in UP the British played an active role in Muslim
regeneration.
It is an open secret that without the active British government support the MAO
College Aligarh would not have succeeded the way it did. Sir Syed’s role was
decisive in convincing the British in the post-1857 period that many Muslims of
Northwest provinces (UP) had been as loyal as the Punjabi Muslims during the
rebellion.
16. The fact that the British drew separate rules for treating sepoys and Talukdars is
evident from the British treatment of UP Talukdars in both Oudh (at that time a
separate region under a Chief Commissioner) and Northwest province
(remaining present UP) where almost all Talukdars who came back to India
from Nepal received back their estates and their previously held Talukdari
rights which included minor criminal jurisdiction.
This policy was implemented in Oudh in 1859 and in Northwest provinces from
January 1861 onwards. Thus the most negative result of the rebellion was
renewed alliance between the British and the feudals which Dalhousie had
abandoned.
Thus the British gave rebirth to feudalism, which Dalhousie had firmly resolved
to eradicate from India. Those who had overawed the British were hanged or
killed in battle while those who had merely taken advantage of the rebellion
were restored.
The British in the post-1857 period abandoned Dalhousie’s heroic mission i.e.
to bring social justice and fair government to India. Utilitarianism had proved
too costly an experiment and the people of India were condemned to feudalism
and exploitation.
While the Congress succeeded in keeping the feudals under the table and on the
sidelines by virtue of having a larger and more educated Hindu professional and
middle class the Muslim League as well as the Unionist partly were largely
feudal dominated debating clubs.
17. The Muslim League remained a marginally middle class partly till 1937 which
explains its failure in elections fought in a largely rural Muslim electorate.
But failure in 1937 forced Mr. Jinnah to court with the Punjabi, Sindhi and
Pathan feudals and this enabled him to make Muslim League the true
spokesmen of Indian Muslims and in realizing the cherished goal of Pakistan
but also destroyed Muslim League as a party.
Simply because these feudals had no ideology except personal interest which
made them an absolutely worthless bunch of total opportunists.
Their talent or lack of it can be judged from the fact that they loyally served the
Sikhs at a time when Sikhs used Muslim mosques as stables and powder
magazines!
The few good men among these Punjabi Muslim Feudals who resisted the Sikhs
like the Chatthas, the Bhattis and Nawab Muzaffer Khan Saddozai died fighting
the Sikhs.
Those who were left were the ones who first served as loyal Sikh toadies and
later switched their allegiance very quickly to the British once they embarked
on the Second Sikh War.
These feudals were the ones who assisted the British in 1857 when the rebellion
broke out in areas east of Ambala. Again they stood by the British in 1919
when Punjab for the first time challenged the British.
18. This crucial movement of 1919 which signified a change in attitude of Punjabis
at least those south of Chenab River proved that Punjab could no longer be
regarded as a pro-British bastion the way it was in 1857.
It is significant to note that the 1919 disturbances in Punjab are today largely
ignored by Pakistan historians merely because the Muslim League in 1919 was
too loyal to take part in them!
The fact that the disturbances were largely Congress organized does not
however mean that Punjabi Muslims did not take an active part in these
disturbances.
Who can forget Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew! But Saifuddin Kitchlew stayed
in India.
It is important to note that the principal anti-British movements in the post-1857
scenario were witnessed in the maritime
provinces of Bombay, Madras and Bengal. The united provinces
of Agra and Oudh as they were called after 1901 were as tranquil and as
peaceful as Punjab.
Bengal which had been absolutely calm and quiet in 1857 now became the
centre of extremist and radical politics. Even the myth of Punjab loyalty was
shattered by Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh by the 1907 disturbances which though
much smaller in scale than the 1919 disturbances alarmed the British because
prior to 1907 Punjab was regarded as an absolutely reliable province.
19. Extremism became the slogan of the anti-British Bengalis and the myth of the
Muslim danger to British rule in India was replaced by a real threat of Hindu
anti-British extremist politics.
In today’s world specially in Pakistan the rebellion is continuously down played
since the Punjab did not play any part except in staying loyal to the British.
Insignificant events like the Afghan wars were given more importance than
they deserved, merely as part of an elaborate western propaganda campaigns
following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
Few today know that the British captured Kabul in August 1839 with just about
7,000 troops on half rations out of which some 1,800 were British while the
remaining were mostly Hindus from Northwest provinces and some Hindustani
Muslims!
The Britishers in this war captured Ghazni with a loss of just 17 men killed and
165 wounded622! Compare this with the casualties at Delhi in 1857 i.e. 1,003
men killed and 2,795 wounded623!
Actually the combined casualties of the pure white troops from all causes
including weather disease etc. of all three Afghan wars which the British fought
were less than pure white casualties due to all causes of the British in 1857.
Statistical evidence proves that the Punjabi Sikhs were tougher opponents than
the Afghans and the combined British Indian casualties in all three Afghan wars
were less than in the two Sikh wars! In today’s biased scenario historians
in Pakistan are hell bent on projecting only Muslims as heroes while the non-
Muslim Indians are being under rated out of proportion!
20. Even a distinction is drawn between Muslims once the rebellion of 1857 is
largely ignored in Pakistan!
The simple fact that the pre-1947 British Indian Army did well in thrashing the
Afghans or Japanese or Turks or Gurkhas was not because the Hindustani or the
Punjabi Mussulman or the Sikh or the Dogra or the Gurkha was good, but
simply the British officer was an excellent leader of men!
Even the Frontier Expeditions about which the British talked so much were
small shows in terms of casualties! When we analyze the facts we are surprised.
For example, an analysis of all British expeditions against the Pathan tribes
undertaken between 1849 and 1881 resulted in just 2,242 casualties which
compared with siege of Delhi’s total casualties of 3,828 men are smaller.
But this is not all, if we take casualties suffered against one non-NWFP tribe
out, i.e. the “Hindustani fanatics” of Ambeyla which were 908 killed and
wounded the above mentioned casualties are reduced to just 1,334 killed and
wounded624!
These are facts of our history but how many people know this today in Pakistan.
Few people in today’s Pakistan know that the only fort which the British could
not capture in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan was that of Bhurtpore in 1804.
All other forts which the British besieged were captured in the same campaign
or in the same siege except the Hindu Jat Fortress of Bhurtpore!
21. Later on this Fortress was captured in 1826 in another war but that was much
later. The fact that the British failed to capture a fortress in a single campaign
was unique.
The aim of all this discussion to highlight the absurdity of today’s idiotic myths
about the so-called martial races or about Muslim’s superior to Hindus as
soldiers etc.
Another good yardstick of comparing the rebel of 1857 with the Muslim Leader
of 1940 is the degree of risk involved.
In September 1857 all the sepoys defending Delhi against the British knew that
if captured they would either be bayoneted, hanged or blown by a gun! The
British took no prisoners just like the sepoys who used to kill all white men they
caught!
The Muslim League worker of 1940 or 1947 or the Feudal Muslim politician of
1940 or 1946 never faced any such risk. The grandsons or great grandsons of
the loyal Mohammadans of India as Sir Syed had called them in 1858 achieved
without a single casualty what the sepoys failed to achieve in 1857-58 with so
much of bloodshed. But there was bloodshed somewhere because of which the
British left India so prematurely; at Somme, at Amiens, at Ypres at Dunkirk and
at Arnhem.
Today, our leaders and historians on the official payroll describe it as a
struggle! There was no struggle, the British were going just because they had
22. become war weary having gone through two great wars which had bled them
white!
They left India in 1947 just like they left Canada or Australia or South Africa,
peacefully and gracefully!
The India they left in 1947 was more developed than it was in 1857 but was
more jaundiced and hatred ridden than in 1857. An Indo-Pak subcontinent
plagued by religious hatred, exploitation and confusion.
A region which would remain plagued by poverty disease and ignorance!
Obscurantism bias and complexes would be the hallmarks of Indo-Pak
character! Even today India and Pakistan are engaged in a conflict which has no
basis, somewhere they fight for a worthless piece of rock and glacier,
somewhere they are fighting for an obscure valley.
The seeds of this hatred and division were laid in the post-1857 decades.
Division on basis of religion in itself proved to be no solution. Islam did not
prevent the West Pakistanis from persecuting the East Pakistanis nor did
it prevent the Pakistani Army from killing more Baloch than all Baloch who
died fighting the British from 1839 to 1947!
Similarly the Hindu regime in Delhi could be well compared with the Mughals
in persecuting Sikhs! The roles of the neo-Indian Mughals remained the same
whether it was India or Pakistan i.e. embarking on unjust ethnic, internal wars
designed at eliminating a particular race.
23. Here the British policy of having only certain selected races paid rich dividends
because the army man was happy to open fire as long as he did so outside his
own province!
The Chief Secretary of Bengal whether it was a thoroughbred Englishman of
pre-1947 or a thoroughbred Punjabi like Aziz Ahmad of the post-1947, East
Pakistan viewed the Bengalis simply as small ugly looking men of a foreign
race!
The colonial model of exploitation continued in the case of West and East
Pakistan whether it was in terms of sharing power or foreign exchange or in
basic rights! The Bengalis were perceived as a docile non-martial race keeping
in view the myths cultivated deliberately by the British.
An infantry division was considered sufficient to keep them in their place just
like 22 British Regiments were thought sufficient for whole of Indo-Pak sub-
continent in 1857!
Thus not only the ship of “Two Nation Theory” “but also the ships of Martial
Races Theory” was sunk in those bottomless depths of the Bay of Bengal!
Today, I am glad that the Tamils by waging the most savage guerilla war in
modern history are proving that any race can be as martial as the “Afghan” or
“Mongol” or “German”! We must not forget that today’s unruly Afghans till
1722 had been a subject race for some 1000 years!
Today’s placid Punjabis had been Alexander’s toughest opponents.
24. Those who doubt it should read what happened at Hydaspes and at Multan once
Alexander invaded India! Even the Punjabis as a race till recent times took on
the Mughals and Afghans as Sikhs.
The Punjabi Muslims peculiar situation in today’s history in terms of resistance
and quality of leadership is the result of the Mughal policy in Punjab. This
position would have been much better had Ayub Khan and Sikander Mirza not
destroyed Democracy in 1956-58.
Unfortunately, the quality of leadership which the Punjabi Muslims had to
produce in the post-1947 period could not be attained because the post-1947
Punjabi leadership was and still is feudal dominated.
Even today’s Punjabi leadership is an unfortunate combination of defective
feudals and dubious business interests.
Men of the breed of Mian Iftikharuddin, Malik Ghulam Jilani, Tariq Ali, Malik
Barkat Ali, were unfortunately unsuccessful.
A great role was played in this regard was played by the Civil-Military Junta
who during the dark periods of 1956-68, 1969-71 and 1977-88 systematically
purged Pakistan of all men with pride, integrity and talent!
They wanted to breed a class of men whose character’s hallmark was
“Sycophancy”, “Docility” and Timidity”. Men who could readily become even
a donkey’s disciple! The values of Western Democracy, however, imperfect
were still better than the poisonous intellectual stagnation of years of
dictatorship led by men who were not even good soldiers in actual war time!
25. The British keeping aside their colonial mentality had at least emancipated the
people of Indo-Pak in many ways, by introducing western education, ideas of
social justice, however imperfect, thanks to their fatal marriage with feudalism
in the post- 1857 scenario!
A system of elections was introduced slowly and gradually in the post-1858
period. Many elections were held in the thirty year period before 1947.
A system was introduced but in 1962, some hundred years after the British had
already embarked on the experiment of Western Democracy in India a man on
horseback (actually it was a mule but through an error of perception we saw it
as a horse) suddenly discovered that the people of Pakistan were not fit for
democracy and he took us two centuries back by introducing the “Basic
Democracy” system of elections!
Imagine if the British had done the same in 1920 or 1935 how we would have
condemned them. They were too intelligent to insult our intelligence the way it
was insulted in 1962 or even in 1984 in that infamous referendum.
Perhaps keeping in view excesses committed by the law enforcement agencies
in Indo-Pak, since 1947 till 2002 specially those in Kashmir, Bangladesh, and
Sindh even the British excesses of 1857 seen innocent!
The history of Pakistan is the history of usurpers or of civilian leaders belonging
to political parties who are test tube babies of machinations of the civil military
elite to dupe the people.
The British inherited system of Democracy, however, imperfect if executed
could have prevented many of the problems which are today plaguing Pakistan.
26. The civil-military clique, however, deliberately destroyed Democracy
in Pakistan. In this process they brought us back to the same place from where
we had started in 1857 or 1858.
Long ago Descartes said that if a man loses his way in a jungle he must make an
assessment and start moving in one direction and maintain it despite any
subsequent doubts. Only by doing this would he be able to find his way.
The British came to India out of economic necessity. They ruled it for some two
centuries and about eight decades before leaving it embarked on an experiment
to introduce a system of Democracy in India.
The fact that they supported feudalism is another side of the coin. The fact that
they left a viable system is another indisputable side of the coin.
The fact that Democracy succeeded in India and did not succeed in Pakistan can
simply be seen as triumph of the combined civil-military-feudal clique
in Pakistan in destroying democracy and in the success of a stronger educated
Hindu middle/professional class and keeping “Generals” “Civil Servants” and
“Feudals” in their place, i.e. “useful” but “subservient”!
It can also be seen as a comparative achievement of Congress as an
organisation and failure of Muslim League as an organisation!
Merely stating that Pakistan did not do well because Jinnah died is not enough!
It implies to saying that without Jinnah there would have been no Pakistan,
something which is absolutely absurd!
27. In any case if nations depend on the absence or presence of one man they have
no right to exist! Islam did not die as a religion because of demise of Prophet
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), Christianity did not die when Jesus was
crucified.
Their explanations of why “Democracy” failed in Pakistan is Army which
should have been doing plain soldiering, assumed the role of “Plato” and
“Rosseau” in devising a new socio-democratic political system!
The Muslim League was so barren that dubious civil servants were elevated to
cabinet rank! Fear of Bengali domination haunted the constitution makers who
created circumstances favouring the breakdown of democracy in Pakistan.
Even political parties were infiltrated and usurped by men who were products
of military dictators. These were men who first became ministers in martial law
governments i.e. through the backdoor and then formed their own parties to
assume the role of “Civilian dictator” which has been an ever recurring
phenomena in Pakistan’s history.
While the world around is far ahead of us mentally we have advanced hardly
any more than what we were around 1857.
The bulk of the Indian Muslims who joined the Muslim League during the
period 1940-46 whether Hindustani, Bengali, Punjabi, etc., compelled by
scientific political expediency, and their decision had little to do with Islam.
The same feudals as a class were serving the Khalsa Sikhs when Mosques were
lined with cow dung or used as stables or gunpowder magazines.
28. At least in Ranjit Singh’s time Ghallu Maashki (a water carrier who
successfully requested Ranjit Singh not to desecrate the Golden Mosque
situated in Kashmiri Bazar Lahore.
The Sikhs had plastered the Mosque with cow dung and placed their religious
book Granth in it. Where were the martial races of north of Chenab once this
happened!
The loyal Tiwanas and Noons and Awan, Maliks and Niazis were serving Ranjit
Singh!
In all fairness the Punjabi Muslims in the person of the Chatthas resisted but
the Chatthas were an exception! How can one even disregard the fact that a
predominantly Muslim army fighting against the Muslim Turks and
subsequently during the Khilafat Movement.
The fact that Allama Iqbal refused to renounce knighthood during Khilafat
Movement is indisputable.
The aim is not to criticise Iqbal or anyone else but to illustrate that linking all
events right from the time the Arabs landed in Sind in 711 till 1947 is a
ridiculous exercise and an insult to the intelligence of an average history
student!
The British saved the Delhi Muslims from Marathas and the Punjabi and Pathan
Muslims from Sikhs. Mickey mouse states like Bahawalpur and Sindh survived
only because of British pressure on Ranjit Singh not to attack them.
29. These are facts and should be acknowledged. The Punjabi. Muslims had no
worthwhile role in Indian history as Punjabi Muslims till 1849.
This fact should be accepted. The Muslims by and large were the most loyal
British subjects after 1858. But today textbooks are trying to prove otherwise?
The Muslim League particularly was a loyalist party and was merely
negotiating a good deal for the Muslims in terms of political power but without
any socio-economic programme aimed at improving the lot of the poor
Muslims.
Western analysts are today still debating why democracy failed in Pakistan.
If an answer has to be given in about half a page, one can explain why this
happened.
The Muslim leaders who were members of the first constituent assembly were
90% men who would ask the British Deputy Commissioner what they should do
before taking any major or minor decision.
The Congress Hindu was more politically aware and was not as much overawed
by the Britisher as his Muslim League counterpart.
The reason for this meekness and docility lies in the policy of Loyalism
followed by Muslims in all provinces in the post-1857 period.
The Muslim League could never take part in any agitation against the British
because “Loyalism” was the cornerstone of its policy!
Before 1857 no doubt the Muslims were the leaders and Hindus looked up to
them.
30. But in the post-1857 scenario the whole equation was transformed. Since 1947
the Hindustani Muslim historians are trying very hard to prove that the Punjabi
Muslim Unionists were toadies while the Muslim League was the real freedom
fighter!
The simple fact is that both the parties were toadies and the only difference was
that in Punjab the Muslims were in a majority while in UP and Bombay etc. the
Muslims were in minority.
The same Muslim League was panting to ally with Unionist Muslims and thus
the resultant Jinnah-Sikandar Pact. It is strange that the Muslim League which
did not take part in any active agitation against the British failed to even
improve its party organisation during the period 1906-46.
No leader of this party was jailed by the British and these gentlemen had all the
time to at least improve their party organisation.
They failed to do so and had no clear cut manifesto outlining any.
Today, the text books of history want us to believe that Muslims would have
remained illiterate without MAO College Aligarh!
Facts, unfortunately prove that nothing is farther from the truth than this. The
British in all fairness did not discriminate between Hindu and Muslim in
education and were indeed even MAO College Aligarh’s principal patron!
The college was saved from total collapse in late 1890s by the British.
In terms of Muslim’s education between 1882 and 1902, Aligarh had produced
220 Muslim graduates which were just 18.5% out of the total Muslim graduates
31. of all India i.e. 1,184625. Aligarh was the educational heartland of the UP
Muslims but not of all Indian Muslims.
But we must remember that UP was not the most educated province in British
India. Bengal was the most literate province and Sir Sayed was most affraid of
the Bengali not because he was a Hindu, but because he was not from UP. thus
Sayed Ahmad’s speech of December 1887 in which he attacked the Congress
was an attack on a non-loyalist party and not on a Hindu party.
Sayed Ahmad in 1887 was not a sole Muslim spokesman but the spokesman of
all Hindustani loyalist elite of UP. The Punjabi Muslims who had become
British favourites following their loyalty at Delhi and Lucknow did not need a
Sir Sayed.
The Hindustani Muslims who united under Sayed Ahmad were those who were
as opportunistic as the Punjabi Muslims! Under Sayed Ahmad Khan they were
not fighting a losing battle but were merely preserving a strong position.
Sayed Ahmad’s Lucknow speech amply proves this point, thus Sayed Ahmad
condemned the newly founded Indian National Congress in following words:
“Would our aristocracy like that men of low caste or insignificant origin, though
he be a B.A. or M.A. and have the requisite ability, should be in a position of
authority above them and have the power in making the laws that affect their
lives and property? Never! Nobody would like it............... Think for a moment
what would be the result if all appointments were given by competitive
examination. Over all races, not only over Mahomedans but over Rajas of high
position and the brave Rajputs have not forgotten the swords of their ancestors,
would be placed as ruler a Bengali who at sight of a table knife would crawl
32. under his chair..... if you accept that the country should groan under the yoke of
Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengalis shoes, then, in the name of God,
Jump into the train, sit down and be off to Madras! (Congress’s session
at Madras). The Muslim League was basically a UP dominated organisation
fighting for the interested of the Urdu speaking Muslim elite of the United
Provinces of Agra and Oudh. In 1938 thanks to Jinnah Sikandar Pact it
entered Punjab by accepting in its fold members of the Punjabi Muslim
Unionist Party. The result of this brilliant but pragmatic/opportunistic marriage
of convenience was the 1940 Pakistan Resolution.
The Punjabi Muslim’s history starts from 1849. Before that they had no role in
Indo-Pak. They were alternatively ruled after 1756 by Afghans and Sikhs.
The Muslim elite of pre-1849 India was in the area
of Delhi, Lucknow and Hyderabad.
Even the UP Muslims west of Aligarh were Maratha vassals who had been
rescued by British East India Company in 1803.
In 1857 the Punjabi Muslims became martial when they marched under the
British officers to capture and loot Muslim Delhi and Lucknow!
In the First World War, the Punjabi Muslims were as staunch as a rock in
loyalty to the British while fighting against the Turks!
There was no freedom struggle in India in 1914 and a mere eight infantry
regiments and two cavalry regiments were holding entire India!
33. The historians want us to believe that India was groaning under the British heel,
the Muslims were the underdogs! Muslims were the principal group who they
trusted in their army, this fact is conveniently ignored!
Not a single soldier wavered during the Khilafat Movement or during Non Co-
operation Movement. At least not a single Punjabi Muslim who were the bulk
of Muslim fighting troops in the Indian Army.
The Muslim League is portrayed as all along fighting the British whereas
Muslim League was the most loyalist party and had hardly any role in any
agitation or resistance against the British right till 1946!
These facts are ignored!
Aligarh’s role i.e. that of enabling Muslims to enter government service while
commendable is distorted into portraying that it was
an academy of Muslim freedom fighters. Aligarh College could not have run for
one day without the British financial aid it received.
To brand all students at Aligarh as loyalists would be equally false. But the
politically aware students were the underdogs at Aligarh and many were
expelled for their anti-British views.
Loyalism i.e. loyalty to the British was the standard philosophy at
Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College Aligarh.
As per the rules of the students Union Club “no matter shall be discussed which
raises the question of permanence or stability of the British Rule, any subject
34. which involves the necessity of the speakers------------- taking up a disloyal or
seditious attitude towards the British Government or in its internal polity or
external relations627”.
I have no prejudice against the Aligarh College or its students Union.
My grandfather was a member of the student union of 1918 and three of his
brothers studied from MAO College. The point is that history must be written as
it happened.
The majority of Muslims in British India were loyal subjects just like the
majority of Hindus. The British Indian Empire cannot be compared with a
French or Russian or Spanish or Belgian Colony.
The British were relatively more liberal, tolerant and even just as long as their
colonial interest was not involved. These are facts.
The Congress was anti-Pakistan but not anti-Muslim. It was definitely
qualitatively a much more superior party to the All India Muslim League and
spearheaded the Indian quest (but not a struggle in the true sense) for freedom.
The comparison between Congress and League does not need even two
complete lines to argue and prove.
The simple fact that within seven years of creation of Pakistan the Muslim
League disappeared proves that there was hardly a party.
The Muslim aspiration for a separate state was there but the prime motivation of
the leadership except Jinnah was personal interest, and opportunism.
35. The aim was to manipulate the Muslim masses and to ensure that they remain
subservient to Muslim feudals without any worthwhile programme of socio-
economic reform.
The issue all along from 1947 till today has been personal power at least as far
as Pakistan is concerned.
I am not fit to comment on India but what I admire about India is that they have
at least a system and no army officer or civil servant ever dared to challenge the
system in India.
This is one good thing which the Hindus have learnt after centuries of
subjugation by Muslim Turk and Pathan invaders.
In Pakistan all the ethnic communities have hang ups. But the ones who have
the most serious misconceptions about being martially superior or intellectually
superior are the Punjabi (Not Seraiki who live in Southern part of Punjab) and
the Hindustani Muslims (Mohajirs)!
One is amused when very frequently we hear a Punjabi Muslim speak about
Muslim rule in India before 1857 as if the Punjabi Muslims were ruling India.
The Punjabi Muslim is no doubt ruling today’s Pakistan but before 1849 the
Punjabi Muslim had no major role in Indian Muslim history. the Hindustani
Muslims were doing well till 1919 but they suffered under a ridiculously idiotic
leadership who led them into impractical approaches.
In 1997 I was visiting a friend in National Defence College in Islamabad. An
officer who was on a course in the college joined our discussion and maintained
a ridiculous line that Pakistani Muslims were more martial and brave than the
Indians.
36. When I reminded the officer that no Punjabi Muslims had invaded India, he
changed the line and said all Muslims are one race!
When I enquired about the location of Islamic identity when the largely Punjabi
Muslim army was engaged in genocide, rape and looting in Muslim East Bengal
in 1971, the officer replied that the army was correcting the Bengali Muslims
who had been subverted by Indian propaganda!
Such ridiculous people constitute the elite of Pakistan’s army and also dominate
the quixotic intelligence agencies!
These men who are mostly Punjabi Muslim regard Punjab as the only
real Pakistan while any Sindhi, Baloch or Pathan who talks about provincial
autonomy or basic rights is anti- Pakistan (Anti-Punjab) or an Indian or Jewish
agent!
The same is true for the other ethnic groups; except that they do not dominate
the army.
The worst result of this organised murder of history is that the perception of the
students has been dangerously narrowed.
They are colour blind and naive and see everything as black or white. Panipat is
seen as a conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim whereas in 1761 there were
Muslims on both sides and the issue was territory and not religion.
There were Pathans and other Muslims in the Maratha army and there were
Hindus fighting against the Maratha army!
In 1857 there were more Hindus fighting on the rebel side and more Muslims
fighting against the Delhi rebels than Hindus! Only one in eight rebels was a
Muslim!
37. But the historians divide everything as Hindu or Muslim.
How can anyone with a sane and dispassionate mind compare Iqbal with Tagore
when Tagore renounced knighthood because Indians were being killed and
kicked and made to crawl in streets specially in Punjab, while Iqbal accepted it
at the height of Khilafat Movement 628.
But Iqbal is today projected in Pakistan as the sole man on the Punjabi Muslim
quota! Liaqat Ali Khan is Quaid-e-Millat on the Hindustani Muslim quota!
38. Every second Punjabi Muslim who claims to be an intellectual cannot digest his
food till he writes one page in degrading Liaqat Ali Khan that accursed ‘Black
Quail’ as Punjabi Muslims call Hindustani Muslims in Pakistan!
The Pathan despises the Punjabi and describes the Punjabi Muslim as “Dal
Khor” (Dal eater).
The average Punjabi Muslim describes the Bengali Muslim as treacherous!
Had those people been treacherous, dubious and like Ghulam Mohammad,
Sikandar Mirza and Ayub could not have manipulated them in a totally unjust
and arbitrary manner!
To a foreigner unacquainted with this
so-called Islamic Republic these above mentioned points may sound odd but
unfortunately these are facts.
In the army the martial officers from Chakwal and Jhelum, many of whom were
my regimental officers were absolutely convinced that the Hindu was a
coward!
The Sikh absurdly was better and many Punjabi Muslim officers erroneously
described their ancestors as Sikhs.
In reality most of the Punjabi Muslims were Hindus including the vast majority
north of Chenab which from the bulk of Pakistan Army!
Even as Hindus these men were as brave or as timid as after becoming
Muslims!
The Hindustani Muslim also according to these officers is effeminate and
cowardly like a Hindu!
39. In frequent discussions the fact that Ahmad Shah Abdali could find no better a
man to rule Lahore than a Pathan, Hindu Kabuli Mal and that a mere 1% Sikhs
who had been relentlessly persecuted by Muslims for 150 years dominated and
ruled Muslim majority Punjab was still no reason to disprove that the Punjabi
Muslims were very martial.
My answer to these chauvinistic claims was always very simple and brief, “The
most martial man during Ranjit Singh’s period was Ghallu Maashki!
The simple fact that religion alone is no passport to bravery or martial prowess
was simply unacceptable to the block headed officer class.
The troops of my regiment had a different story to narrate. Those who do not
know will be surprised that the 11 Cavalry (FF) [the 1st and 3rd Punjab Cavalry
raised by Lieutenant Daly in May 1849] is the only regiment in Pakistan Army
which made a significant offensive operation inside Indian territory in face of
very strong enemy forces in all three Indo-Pak wars i.e. 1949-1965 and 1971!
The troops who had fought these wars were all praise for the Indian Army in
terms of bravery resourcefulness and imaginative leadership! 33% of the
regiment comprised of Ranghar Muslims (Hindustani Muslims
from Delhi division). The myths of supremacy plague Hindustani Muslims
also.
On a visit to Karachi a close friend told me that people in Lahore did not have
as high an intellectual calibre as those in Karachi!
Three weeks stay in Karachi, however, convinced me that the Urdu speaking
people were as much the victim of a false and erroneous superiority complex as
the Punjabis.
40. The average Hindustani Muslim living in Karachi is convinced that he or his
ancestors created Pakistan and sacrificed everything they had. Simple facts and
figures prove that neither the Punjabi Muslims nor the Hindustani Muslims
deliberately or by design sacrificed.
Five to eight times more Punjabi Muslims were killed during the 1947 riots at
the time of partition of India and Pakistan. Had the Punjabi Muslims, however,
opportunistic or selfish not voted for the Muslim League in 1946 elections,
there would have been no Pakistan.
The Hindustani Muslim must get rid of this idea. The Aligarh College played a
significant part in the Muslim League but that was just one factor.
Giving all credit to the United Provinces or Aligarh for the creation
of Pakistan is merely a gross distortion of history.
In any case Muslim League and the Aligarh Movement had absolutely no
connection with the rebels of 1857 and the Muslim League all along from 1906
to 1946 was a Loyalist party! So the question of struggle or sacrifice in any case
does not arise.
The Punjabi Muslim vote was crucial and without this vote there would have
been no Pakistan. The post-1947 failure of democracy in Pakistan was a
organisational failure of the Muslim League and not a Punjabi conspiracy.
All these biases and attitudes of mutual distrust and hatred, however, were not
inevitable.
They were the result of a deliberate policy of “Divide and Rule” followed by the
men who ruled Pakistan right from 1948. Liaqat Ali was definitely the sole man
who could have prevented this infection from developing into an epidemic.
41. He got four years of power but failed because he himself was a victim of myths
of superiority. The successors of Liaqat Ali Khan actively adopted the colonial
philosophy of “Divide and Rule” as a deliberate policy. East versus West Wing.
The pre-1947 legacy of Punjabi dominated army and Hindustani dominated
middle class led to intensification of distrust. Ghulam Mohammad Mirza, Ayub,
Bhutto, Zia used the ethnic divisions to divide the populace so that they could
rule in peace.
The one unit divided the country into three camps the Punjab, anti-
Punjab, West Pakistan and the deprived Bengal. What was domination by a
privileged class of army officers, civil servants and industrialists was
mistakenly referred to as Punjabi domination.
Mujib proved to be a braver man than all Bengali Muslim leaders since Titu Mir
(a Pathan by descent). He was not overawed by the army and adopted a very
brave and intellectually honest course.
The Bengalis paid very heavily for this upright attitude, but unlike the West
Pakistan Muslims, theirs was a real struggle for independence through night and
blood! Today, they are more complex, free and clear headed than an average
Pakistani.
The lesson is simple. Opportunism, political expediency and personal interest
can create a piece of land called a country but a nation cannot be created based
on vague contradictory and essentially dishonest slogans.
The Pakistanis have only two options today, either to destroy the class of army
generals, civil servants, intelligence agencies, industrialists and landlords who
have been making a fool out of the common man in the name of Islam etc. etc.
or let the five or six nationalities on their own taking care of themselves.
42. This farce in the name of religion cannot go on. The choice is either
“Balkanisation” or “Stability”; the former being the logical case in case the
irrational approach of conflict and confrontation continues, the latter in case
disputes are resolved and the essentially unjust socio-political system in both
the states is demolished?
END NOTES
619Page-114-Separatism Among Indian Muslims-Op Cit.
620Statements of Syed Ahmad Khan in the Issues of 10 July and 31 July
1880 Aligarh Institute Gazette-Aligarh-1880.
621Page-112-Separatism Among Indian Muslims-Op Cit.
622Page-85-J.W Fortescue-Vol-XII-Op Cit.
623Page-309-Foot Note-J.W Fortescue-Vol-XIII-Op Cit.
624Totalled from Expedition Wise Casualties as given in Appendix-Four-
Pages-654 & 655-Records of the Expeditions against the North West Frontier
Tribes-Op Cit.
625Page-185-Aligarh’s First generation-Muslim Solidarity in British India -
David Lelyveld-First Printed by Princeton University Press-Reprinted by
Oxford University Press-New Delhi-1978.
626Pages-307 & 308-Ibid
627Page-319-Ibid.
628Pages-26 & 27-Iqbal-Poet Philosopher of Pakistan-Edited by Hafeez Malik-
Columbia-New York-1971.