It
was the Third Umpire who established Pakistan.
Dr
Shabir Choudhry 16 December 2017
Although
the term ‘third umpire’ was only used when politics of protests – dharnas
started in Islamabad; and Imran Khan kept on saying that soon the Umpire’s
finger will go up to dismiss the elected government. Many analysts believe this
third umpire was the Pakistani establishment; or more appropriately some senior
officers of secret agencies and some army Generals.
However,
as more information comes to light and more research is completed, it becomes
apparent that the creation of Pakistan was a British agenda. For this, the
Third Umpire of the time was very active; and with his help different matters
like religious, political and social matters were manoeuvred to achieve the
agreed agenda of dividing Muslims and India.
Of
course, in doing so, religious hatred and intolerance was promoted as a matter
of policy; and this paved the way to divide India. Undivided India, with social
and political stability could have been a big threat to the interests of the
Britain and America.
Before
we look at the Pakistan Resolution of 1940, it is pertinent to briefly look at
results of 1937 elections to tell people how unpopular was Muslim League in
areas of the present Pakistan. Punjab and Sindh which had the biggest support for
the Muslim League and Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah in mid 1940s, did not vote for
Muslim League in the elections of 1937. This was the result of the Muslim
League in 1937 elections, which was held in the British India:
Out
of total of 1585 seats,
Congress
won 707 seats;
Muslim
League won 106 seats; but Muslim League:
·
Failed to win any seat in Sindh;
·
Failed to win any seat in NWFP; but
·
they managed to win 01 seat in Punjab. 1
The
result of Punjab elections was as follows:
Unionist Party: 95 seats
Congress:
18
Khalsa National Board:
11
Hindu Election Board:
11
Akalis: 10
Others: 04
Independent: 22
Pakistani leaders claim that Mr Jinnah wanted to live
within the united India, but because the Congress did not share government with
the Muslim League after the 1937 elections; and that forced them to demand a
separate homeland for Muslims.
It is not clear on what basis the Muslim League should
have been offered Ministries? They had one seat in Punjab and not a single seat
from Sindh and NWFP. In a democracy if a party with the largest party is able
to form a government, then why on earth they should invite an opponent to sit
on government benches? Details of Muslim League progress in other Provinces is
as follows:
1.
In Assam, out of total
108, Muslim League won 10 seats;
2.
In Bengal: out of 250
seats League won 37;
3.
In Bihar: out of 152
seats, League did not win any seat;
4.
In Bombay: out of 175
seats, League won 18;
5.
In Central Provinces:
out of 112 seats, League won 5;
6.
In Madras: out of 215
seats, League won 9;
7.
In Orissa: out of 60,
League did not win any seat. 2
Based on this result, how could Muslim League leaders and
Mohammed Ali Jinnah demand a share in the governments of Provinces? Just
because you head a party which is called Muslim League does not qualify you to
form a government or be a partner in a government.
However, is it not interesting that out of 106 seats the
Muslims League won in the 1937 elections, they had only 1 seat from the areas
which form the present Pakistan. Of course, the Indian Punjab and the Pakistani
Punjab were one at that time; and from that united Punjab the Muslim League
managed to win only one seat.
Is it also not interesting that when the Muslim League
decided to demand a separate homeland for Muslims, they held a Conference or
Convention in Lahore, Punjab, from where they won only one seat; and not in the
areas from where they won many seats. Why?
One possible answer is that planners of Pakistan or real
creators of Pakistan wanted to establish the new country in this region,
because they knew strategic importance of Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan.
It was these areas which could help them to advance their agenda.
Mohammed
Ali Jinnah was obviously very disappointed with these results. According to
1941 Census, Punjab had 53.2% Muslim majority, and some districts had
overwhelming Muslim majority; Sindh had 72% Muslim majority. NWFP also had
overwhelming Muslim majority with very low level of literacy rate. It was 15.5%
in 1972. One can imagine what would be the literacy rate in NWFP in mid 1940s,
when Mohammed Ali Jinnah visited the region and spoke to them in English. How
many of them understood English at that time? And without understanding what he
said why they were shouting slogans in his favour. Doesn’t this illustrate that
power and influence of the ‘third umpire’ achieved the desired results?
In
any case, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and his other leaders were really annoyed with
the outcome of 1937 elections. He was more annoyed with people of Punjab. After
the elections, he reportedly remarked:
"I
shall never come to the Punjab again; it is such a hopeless place." 3
One
wonders what changed the situation, and how he became very popular leader in
Punjab, Sindh and NWFP where traditionally, and even now votes are controlled
by religious leaders –Peers and aristocrats. Ordinary people worked as peasants
and they were, and to a large extent still are controlled by landed aristocrats.
Overwhelming majority of the people were illiterate as
there were few schools and people didn’t have means to send their children to
schools. Situation still is appalling and millions of school age children are
out of schools due to poverty and lack of facilities.
It supports the view that once the British decided to
relinquish their Raj in India they wanted to leave India divided, full of hatred;
and that could only be achieved with help of Muslim League and Mohammed Ali
Jinnah. To achieve that target, the ‘third umpire’ became active and promoted
the Muslim League and their leader who could not even speak Urdu or any other
local language to communicate with the people he wanted to ‘liberate’.
Question is how people understood him? It looks that
Peers and aristocrats in the present Pakistan were told by the third umpire of
the time to help Mr Jinnah; and they told their followers and peasants to
attend public meetings and shout slogans and clap to express solidarity with
the man and his mission.
Generally, Islam is in danger; and Hindus and Jews are
conspiring against Islam are good slogans to win support of the Muslims. That
is exactly what Mr Jinnah and Muslim League did – used name of Islam to advance
their agenda. Soon after he got his Pakistan, on 11 August 1947, he said:
"You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to
your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan…. Now
I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that
in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease
to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith
of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State". 4
Doesn’t this suggest that he fooled people in name of
religion, promoted religious hatred and intolerance. Once Muslims of the Indian
Sub-Continent and India was divided, he reverted to his secularism. If Muslims
and Hindus can be Pakistanis and could live in peace and harmony to serve the
new country; then why Muslims and Hindus could not live in a country where they
lived together for centuries.
All the above supports the view which was presented by Pir Pagara that
it was the British who created Pakistan. He claimed that Sir Sikander Ayat met
the British Prime Minister Churchill in Cairo and said for the sacrifices we
Muslims have offered to the British Empire; the blood money should be a
separate state for us. This matter was also confirmed by Sir Sikander Ayat’s
son, Sardar Shaukat Ayat. 5
Pir Pagara said the Lahore Resolution or Pakistan Resolution of 1940 was
passed on the instructions, and with approval of the British. He said this is
the reality; but if you want to please people then that is a different matter.
All the powerful people and landlords joined the Muslim League on the
instructions of the British. 6
It is sad that wrong history has been
taught to the people; and true history is mercilessly distorted, tampered and
hidden. One Pakistani wrote a book called ‘Murder of History in Pakistan’. The
book is not available anywhere now.
Writer is a political analyst, and author of many
books and booklets. Also, he is Chairman South Asia Watch, London and Director
Institute of Kashmir Affairs.
Reference:
2.
Ibid
3.
Source: Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman, Sang-e-Meel Publications,
Lahore, 2010, p. 22
4.
(Source:Constituent Assembly of
Pakistan Debates, vol 1 no 2, 11 August 1947, page 20)
6. Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment