HYDERABAD: Speakers have said it was the character of late G. M. Syed that he was influencing generations as a politician.

He wanted to lead the nationalist struggle along secular and progressive lines, they added.

They were speaking at an academic debate programme on the book The Sun of Sindh, a compilation of G.M. Syed’s life and writings, by Zafar Junejo at the local press club the other day.

At the event organised by the Hyderabad Roshan Khayal Forum, the speakers stated that Syed had tried to take the struggle on the lines he had envisioned; he not only conceded his errors but also identified them in writing.

They stated Syed had started the struggle from scratch in an era marked by colonial leanings. Feudal lords were also dominating the political landscape then. But, they said, Syed was the only politician who was influencing generations.

Zafar Junejo in his views said that many authors had written on G. M. Syed in English and purpose of a book was always to educate people. He said Syed as a politician had influenced generations.

G M Syed Foundation’s head Dr Zia Shah said that the foundation was established in 1995 and it was to ensure publication of Syed’s unpublished works. He said that people born post-1995 neither met nor heard Syed. He said young generations needed to study him.

He said GM Syed had started his politics in 1937 by questioning land allotments. Allama I. I. Kazi had taught Syed and Elsa Kazi also produced a book on Syed who also remained under the tutelage of Mirza Kaleech Baig.

Jeay Sindh Mahaz chairman Abdul Khaliq Junejo regretted that a detailed biography of G.M. Syed could not be produced, but ‘The Sun of Sindh’ might help fill that void to some extent. He said Syed was a self-respecting soul and added that Sindh was dominated by jagidars, backed by colonial forces, in the region. He said Syed didn’t inherit any struggle, thus he had to start his efforts from scratch in the subcontinent.

He pointed out that while one could say that the passage of pro-Pakistan resolution was Syed’s mistake, but people should talk about his post-resolution character, too. Syed’s books Sindh Ja Soorma and Paigham-i-Latif were reflective of his concept of modern quam parasti because he was influenced by nationalism seen in Europe in 17th and 18th centuries movements, he said. G.M. Syed bequeathed the asset of ‘nationalist struggle’.

Syed was a proponent of the right to self-determination and he had opposed the MRD because it centered on the restoration of 1973 Constitution which talked about ‘one nation’ while the MRD revolved around ‘changes of faces’.

He maintained that G.M. Syed was a man of high stature who questioned jagirdari in Sindh all alone. It was Syed who worked extensively on secularism which remained unmatchable to date and if people of Sindh were offering resistance, it was due to Syed’s philosophy. “G.M. Syed needs to be understood if one wants to understand qaumi tahreek [nationalist struggle],” he remarked and quoted historian Dr Mubarak Ali as having observed Syed wrote history from people’s perspective, otherwise history was written from the rulers’ point of view.

Awami Workers Party leader Dr Bukhshal Thallu said Sindh’s three generations were influenced by Syed’s thoughts. He said G. M. Syed not only laid the foundation stone of nationalist struggle, but also founded ‘hari tahreek’ which then went on to accommodate men like Comrade Zaheer, Comrade Jam Saqi etc. He however, argued that Syed’s strong opposition to the MRD was a mistake, adding that Syed had his failings but still he stood tall.

Intellectual Jaffar Ahmed said that earlier Hyder Bux Jatoi’s book was not sold but then it was published by G.M. Syed Memorial in the US for which stuff was provided by Khadim Soomro and Mansoor Qadir Junejo.

Majeed Chandio said Syed was targeted by religious and secular elements. He praised Zafar Junejo for coming up with the book and recalled that Syed started his politics from Tahreek-i-Khilafat and many political luminaries of the era used to descend on Sann, Syed’s hometown. He said Syed himself had admitted his own mistakes.

Dr Hameed Soomro noted that present conditions confronting Sindh demanded that the path shown by Syed should be talked about in order to rid people of the present morass. He was critical of the fact that intellectuals today were unable to build some narrative and Zafar Junejo had also done the same thing by eulogising Syed in the book without producing a narrative. He, however, said that ‘forum’ would keep holding such debates on books.

Published in Dawn, November 24th, 2025