| June 29, 2005 | Wednesday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 21, 1426 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Train stoppage at Khairpur
Passenger plaint
‘Killing of Armenians’
Cellphone billing
The Holy Quran
Kashmir struggle
Gujarat episode
IN his article,’Jinnah: before and after 1920 Congress session’ (June 14), Mr M. J. Akbar, editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi, relates the story of Mr Jinnah’s parting of ways with the Congress after its 1920 session on the issue of Gandhi’s non-cooperation resolution.
While he was with the Congress, Mr Jinnah was known as “the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity,” a title given to him by the eminent Congress leader, Mrs Sarojini Naidu.
Mr Akbar raises the pertinent question as to why this ‘ambassador of unity’ finally turned a partitionist and goes on to observe: “Ambition and frustration are the reasons commonly suggested in India, but they are not enough to create a new nation. Jinnah made the demand of Pakistan only in 1940 after repeated attempts to achieve constitutional safeguards for Muslims and attempts at power sharing that failed.”
Mr Akbar has hit the nail on the head. At this point, he refers to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who, according to him, “places one finger on the failed negotiations in the United Provinces after the 1936-37 election and a second on the inexplicable collapse of the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 which would have kept India united — inexplicable because both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted it. The plan did not survive a press conference given by Nehru. Jinnah responded with the unbridled use of the communal card and there was no looking back”.
It is here that Mr Akbar has faltered. Surely he knows his history, and I hate to have to recount and focus on the events which followed the announcement of the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 1946 with a view to determining whether its collapse was inexplicable or otherwise.
The fact is that the Congress had accepted the plan with potentially disabling reservations and by putting a disingenuous interpretation of its own on the mission’s proposals. It was only the Muslim League which accepted it without any reservations.
The real story has been narrated by Mr. A. G. Noorani, the eminent jurist of Bombay, in an article: “Cripps and India’s partition” (Frontline, New Delhi, August 2, 2002).
He recalls that while Azad and Patel were rejoicing after the announcement of the Cabinet Mission Plan on May 16, 1946 that the partition of India had been rejected once and for all, on that very day “a small nail was being dug into the proposed coffin of the plan.... Gandhi’s enunciation of a right to interpret the proposals unilaterally. Harijan of May 17 carried his views that ‘the provinces were free to reject the very idea of grouping. No province could be forced against its will to belong to any group even if the idea of grouping was accepted....’ The Congress adopted Gandhi’s line. He stuck to it till the very end. So did the Congress.”
In Part II of the same article published on August 16, 2002, Noorani observes: “A united India spelt sharing of power with the League. On June 10, 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru told the Cabinet Mission categorically that ‘the Congress was going to work for a strong Centre and break the Group System and they would succeed. They did not think that Mr Jinnah had any real place in the country’.” On this Noorani’s comment is that the only way Mr Jinnah could be expelled was by partitioning India. Nehru gave his fateful press conference, referred to by Mr. Akbar, on July 10, 1946, shortly after he took over as president of the Congress from Azad, at which he publicly declared that there would be no grouping and that the Constituent Assembly would be the sovereign body free to decide as it pleased. Jinnah, naturally had no option but to respond as he did.
Finally, the British government sought to resolve the conflict by inviting Nehru, Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and Baldev Singh to London for a conference.
However it did not produce the desired result. The Muslim League agreed with the Cabinet Mission interpretation endorsed by the head of the British judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, which exposed the utter untenability of the Congress’s interpretation and yet the Congress did not agree. The deadlock was complete. So there was now no alternative to the partition of the subcontinent.
One cannot but entirely agree with Mr. Akbar’s dictum: “Facts are humbling. They prevent you from jumping to conclusions.” But then in view of the hard facts narrated above, how could he jump to the conclusion that the collapse of the Cabinet Mission Plan was inexplicable. It was very much explicable — Gandhi and the Congress leadership were squarely responsible for its collapse. There cannot be any two opinions on the subject.
As for Mr. Akbar’s lament that on the day of India’s independence: “A deeply saddened Gandhi spurned August 15, 1947 as a false dawn (to quote Faiz). He spent the day not in celebrations in Delhi but in fasting in Kolkata.”
Having set the ball rolling for wrecking the Cabinet Mission Plan, what was Gandhi deeply saddened by? Was it the belated realization of yet another Himalayan blunder on his part?
On a previous occasion, Gandhi committed what he himself later described as a Himalayan blunder. In that case, it was possible for him to retract and save the situation. In the present case, he could not possibly retract; the die had been cast.
DR AFTAB AHMED
Islamabad
THIS is with reference to the news item, “Train stops at Khairpur urged” (Dawn, June 14). We are told that a delegation of 20 organizations of Khairpur held a meeting with the divisional superintendent of railways, Sukkur, and other relevant authorities and decided that Shalimar Express, Chenab Express, Khyber Mail, Millat Express and the Balochistan Night Coach would stop at Khairpur.
It was also decided that the divisional superintendent of railways, Sukkur, would recommend to the railway headquarters to allow the Karakoram Express and the Karachi Express to stop at Khairpur.
Shalimar Express, Karakoram Express and Karachi Express were explicitly commissioned to allow passengers to travel in the minimum possible time between Karachi and Lahore.
Such trains are “through trains” with no stops in-between except the so-called “technical stops” to enable the staff and the locomotive to change and to take on water and other eatables by the dining car and to enable the passengers to purchase food and drinks.
Rohri and Khanewal serve this purpose and these fast trains should not stop at any other station. Even a two-minute stop delays the train by about half an hour because a train takes time to slow down to stop at a station and to accelerate and reach its cruising speed after leaving a station.
The requirements of the people of Khairpur notwithstanding (who may be provided shuttle trains to enable them to catch express trains from Rohri), stoppage of these three trains will defeat the purpose for which they were, in the first instance, commissioned.
Throughout the world this policy is adopted. Even in neighbouring India, some fast trains do not stop at such important stations as Jhansi and Bhopal.
If I remember well, the first stop of the AP Express after leaving Delhi comes after a five-hour run.
The railway administration should keep in mind that the criterion for providing stops should be the general good of the travelling public, not the convenience of the dwellers of any particular city and not any political pull and push. The presence of a member of the National Assembly of the Functional League in the meeting at which the above decisions were taken smacks of political pressure.
Moreover, the Chinese bogies of the Karakoram Express are inconvenient. Their berths are too short for an average Pakistani. The toilets are too small and room between two opposite berths in a cabin is restricted.
The lower berth is at such a low height that evenan average-sized suitcase does not slide under it. Similarly, there is such little space between the roof and the top berth that a passenger cannot sit up.
This is not the case with local bogies.
SALAHUDDIN MIRZA
Karachi
I TRAVELLED to Quetta on June 22 by PIA from Karachi. The first shock that I got at the Jinnah terminal was information from a PIA officer at the counter that my boarding card had already been issued to some other gentleman by the name of Mr Ghias. I was told to carry Mr Ghias’s boarding card and go to the departure lounge.
The PIA officer escorted me to the departure lounge with a boarding card that was not mine. The gentleman who was issued my boarding card was found in the lounge and we swapped cards.
My return journey by PIA from Quetta to Karachi was booked for June 25 at the time when I had my ticket issued on June 20. When I checked on June 24, I got another shock. The PIA ticket in my name was without any coupon.
The PIA staff at Karachi had taken off both coupons — Karachi-Quetta for June 22 and Quetta-Karachi for June 25. I was told that I should have checked my coupons as well as my name, destinations and flight number when I purchased the ticket and when I got my boarding card.
PIA at Quetta told me that they were sending the particulars of my ticket by telex to Karachi airport and the main PIA booking office at Karachi. If they got a positive response, they would issue me another ticket.
In case there was no response by Friday evening or Saturday morning, they would not be able to help me.
The telex response was received on late Friday afternoon.
I was then told that the PIA staff at Karachi airport had telexed PIA at Quetta on June 22 after they detected the two coupons.
Imagine the tension of a passenger who is told at the eleventh hour that his ticket coupon is missing and his return journey is doubtful.
SABIHUDDIN GHAUSI
Karachi
THIS has reference to the news story (Dawn, June 17), ‘Killing of Armenians: Turkey protests German vote’.
According to the report, Germany’s parliament has condemned Turkey for what it called the mass killing of Armenians by Turks 90 years go, sparking an angry protest from Ankara.
To me it is just like digging a 90-year-old grave. The figure quoted for Armenians killed is exaggerated. In fact, at that time the Armenian population in Turkey couldn’t possibly have been one and a half million.
During the First World War, France and Russia had incited the Armenians to revolt against the Ottoman Empire. They were even supplied arms by France and Russia. When the Turkish men went to fight against the Allies, the Armenians started a massacre of Turkish women and children in the rural areas.
Turkish general Kazim Karabekir was then obliged to use force to crush the rebellion. During that action, a few thousand Armenians might have been killed.
Some of the Armenians who flew took refuge in European countries, es-pecially in France and Germany, where a sizeable Armenian population was already present.
The Armenians occupied important positions in France and Germany and some even succeeded in becoming members of parliament.
Many of them are fundamentalists, and seek to revive old issues like the ‘Armenian massacre’.
In France and other European countries in the 1970s, some of them were even behind the murder of Turkish diplomats.
It is ironical that at a time when Muslim leaders like President Musharraf are fighting a war against terrorism some European leaders are trying to rekindle fanaticism by raising dead issues.
K. MURAD BEY
Karachi
IT seems that a recently launched mobile service provider is overcharging its consumers. I dialled a number in off-peak hours but was still charged the peak rate. When I discussed this issue with some colleagues they said that they have faced a similar problem but when they lodged a complaint on the service provider’s helpline the excess amount was refunded.
So it seems that this is a new gimmick to make money: overcharge all customers and refund the excess to those who complain. The PTA should start looking into the charging structures of these foreign companies.
HATIM
Karachi
THIS is in response to the letter by Mr Sanjay Sexana (June 21). Mr Saxena needs to be clear about a few facts.
Philosophies are based on theories and ideas by man. The Holy Quran is not a book of philosophy but the last of the divine revelations by the Almighty.
The path of Islam has always been revealed as divine revelations of various degrees from the time of the first prophet to the last (peace be upon them), finally as a complete code of life in the form of the Holy Quran. The purpose of the Holy Quran is to provide guidance to all of mankind. This guidance encompasses all aspects of life here and the hereafter for those who believe. Allah gives various examples of previous civilizations that strayed and were destroyed, for example the pharaoh and the Egyptian empire, Thamood and Qaum of Lut, which are all part of our recorded and evident history and not merely ideas or theories as in philosophies.
The Almighty in His divine revelation has Himself guaranteed the integrity and sustenance of the Holy Quran in that no words, alphabet, vowel or meaning could ever be altered or misconstrued or misunderstood. It is a miracle (as Allah has promised) that the Holy Quran remains in its 100 per cent original text since 1,400 years just as it was revealed to the Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Therefore, in all past, present and future interpretations, such as by Yusuf Ali, Maududi, Pickthal and numerous other scholars, the Holy Quran will be correct and valid for all times to come.
Hence the question of injustice to the Holy Quran never arises, since it is so easy to understand — whether it is read verse by verse or para-wise, the message is clear. It is guidance for all those who seek truth.
MIRZA ABDUL KADER BAIG
Karachi
MR Sanjay Saxena writes that he started reading the Holy Quran as philosophy and he is of the opinion that it has been misinterpreted by “vested interests”. Moreover, he has reservations about interpretations of the Ayats.
My advice to Mr Saxena if he really wants to understand Islam or Muslims or the Holy Quran is that he should note the following facts:
1. The Holy Quran was revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who was not just a “messenger” but it was his duty to elaborate, interpret, explain and provide practical demonstration of not only the Quran but all the instructions/wishes of Allah. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) performed his duty completely and to the satisfaction of Allah. Therefore, the only interpretation of the Quran which is acceptable is the one provided by the Prophet (PBUH). Muslims have saved these interpretations in the form the Hadith.
2. The Quran is in Arabic. No translation, no matter how good, can ever convey its true meaning and spirit. However, a comparative study of various translations might provide a better insight.
3. It should be realized that the Quran is neither a book of philosophy nor history nor law but it is a book of “guidance for Mutaqeen”. Although it contains philosophy, refers to historical events and outlines laws, it is basically “guidance”.
These are some of the very basic concepts about the Quran which, if not considered, could mislead the reader to incorrect conclusions.
AKHTAR NADYME
Karachi
THIS refers to the letter by Mr Ahmad Ali Memon (June 23). Mr Memon advises Mr Saxena to read any other interpretation, as the one he has relates to Wahabis.
Mr Memon is advised to read Ayat 102, Surah Aal-e-Imran, in which Allah says, “O you who believe! Be conscious (have Taqwa) of Allah, as you ought to be conscious, and do not die in a state where you are not a (practising) Muslim.” (translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.) This clearly means that we have to die as Muslims only, not as Wahabis, etc. There are Ayats denouncing factions.
Reverting to the subject, I would advise Mr Saxena to read between the lines the message conveyed by each Ayat of the Holy Quran and concentrate on it rather than going into the commentary. If he has a copy of the Holy Quran printed in Saudi Arabia in Urdu and can understand Urdu well, that is enough. But if he can understand English better, he may read the English translation and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who was an Indian.
ZAFARUL HAQ MEMON
Karachi
IN the debate on Kashmir started on April 30 by Mr M.P. Bhandara, I came across an interesting bit in Mr Bhandara’s reply on May 10 to a letter from Mr Khalid Hasan of Washington DC.
Mr Bhandara referred to a remark about Mr Nehru made by Bertrand Russell who had said: “When one observes that the high idealism of the Indian government in international matters breaks down completely with the question of Kashmir, it is difficult to avoid a feeling of despair”. Actually this high idealism was forced by M. K. Gandhi on the Indian government. Where has the ‘high idealism’ gone after his assassination?
This reminds me of a conversation between presidents Ayub Khan and John F. Kennedy in 1962 during the state visit, as noted by Qudratullah Shahab in his memoirs Shahab Nama.
After a banquet both leaders held informal talks. Ayub Khan asked Kennedy: “Mr President, you have good relations with India. Couldn’t you use your influence to have our Kashmir dispute resolved?” Kennedy smiled sheepishly (probably he was not ready for such a direct request) and said: “We have tried, Mr President. When we mention Kashmir dispute, Mr Nehru hangs his head down, looks at the toes of his shoe and keeps looking at them (and does not answer). What can you do about such a man?” That’s the policy that all subsequent Indian prime ministers adopted. Unlike Nehru, they were vocal, but like Nehru they would not listen to reason.
REHANA NAQVI
Karachi
IT has been more than three years since the gruesome anti-Muslim genocide in Gujarat, India, took place in which 3,000 Muslims perished, but not a single person has been punished.
Chief Minister Narinder Modi, the person responsible for all this, is still in power despite the fact that his party lost at the centre. On top of it India continues to portray itself as a democracy and get applauded.
OSAMA NASEER LONE
Lahore
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address:
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.