By Nasir Aijaz

Decades back when I was first introduced to Saeen G. M. Syed, the great nationalist leader of Sindh, at Hyder Manzil, his residence in Karachi, the first question he put was about my hometown. When I just uttered the word ‘Bhiria’, he said, “Hashu Kewalramani’s hometown?”

“I had been there to meet Hashu,” he told, and asked whether Hashu’s home was still intact.

The glimpses of happiness, which I had noticed on his face while hearing the word Bhiria and talking about Hashu, his friend and political guru, had suddenly disappeared when I told him that Hashu’s home exists no more. “I still remember the marble plaque affixed at the door side of Hashu’s home located in a street leading to the bazaar, but it was during my childhood days.”

The occupants of that historic residential building, being unaware of its importance, had demolished it and rebuilt a new home, erasing the history. Hashu Kewalramani was friend of my ancestors and used to share literature even after the partition. I had found a booklet with his signature, he had sent to my grandfather from London.

Hash Kewalramani, a legend of Sindh, was born on December 20, 1914 to Tahalram, a Zamindar and Mukhtiarkar in Revenue Department in that home in Bhiria, a tiny town of Naushehro Feroze district (formerly part of Nawabshah district). Hashu’s grandfather’s name was Khhenyomal. Tahalram, who also served as Resident Magistrate, had two sons – Hashmat Rai alias Hashu and Gopichand alias Gope. Hashu was about eight years when his father passed away on December 23, 1922.

Traditionally, the legendary persons are remembered on their birth and death anniversaries, but today, the 13th of December, I am writing this piece to remember Hashu Kewalramani, as this is the unfortunate day when after his release from the detention in Karachi, Hashu was forced to leave his motherland Sindh for India on December 13, 1949. It was the December when he opened the eyes in this world in Sindh, his father passed away also in the December and in the same month the government of newly created country – Pakistan, had expelled him from his motherland Sindh.

According to Bombay Chronicle’s archival record of December 13, 1949, Hashu Kewalramani, who had been detained under the Public Safety Act by the Pakistan Government, had been released and expelled. “He is said to have left for India”, the Bombay Chronicle reported with slug ‘Red Extern from Pakistan’.

Hashu Kewalramani was arrested by the Pakistan government from his apartment in Karachi on the charges that ‘He was writing something whole the night’. Yes, he was translating Saeen G. M. Syed’s book ‘Naeen Sindh Lae Jidojehad’ (Struggle for a New Sindh). Shaikh Ayaz, great poet of Sindh, in his book ‘Sahiwal Jail Ji Diary’ (A Diary of Sahiwal Jail) writes that he accompanied Hashu when he was produced before Additional Commissioner Masood (An ICS Officer) in Karachi. Masood asked Hashu, “Why don’t you go to India?”, and Hashu’s reply was, “Why should I go. This is my motherland.” And then, the officer ordered Hashu’s detention saying, “You Sindhis will be decimated like Red Indians.” Masood, later known as Masood Khadarposh, was the same Deputy Commissioner, involved in massacre of Sindhi Sikhs in Nawabshah.

On the occasion of Hashu’s ‘Red Extern’ from Sindh, I would like to share an important chapter of history that encompasses his anti-imperialism struggle and efforts to mobilize the students’ power against the British Raj.

Hashmat Rai, who loved to be called Hashu, had his primary education in Bhiria’s Kauromal Chandanmal Academy School and did his matriculation from historic N. J. V. High School Karachi, from where he proceeded to Sri Lanka at the age of 17 and passed an examination for studies in London. He was sent to London in 1935 as his mother and other relatives wanted him to appear in Indian Civil Service examination and become a bureaucrat but Hashu was of different nature. Instead of appearing in ICS examination, he got him enrolled in aeronautical engineering and later switched over to economics and again to politics, as his restless soul didn’t allow him to sit at one place. It was the time when he met Indra Gandhi, her husband Feroze Gandhi and also developed close relations with Indra’s father Jawahar Lal Nahru. Hashu during his stay in the UK became a close associate in India League of Krishna Menon, a Leftist, who later became a right-hand man of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

Hashu actively participated in political gatherings of freedom fighters in London. He returned to Karachi when the World War II started in 1939, and then couldn’t go back to London. Here a new chapter of his life had begun, as he got involved in students’ movement.

Although the students’ movements in Sindh had started since first decade of 20th century, but Hashu is known as the man who united the students under the banner of All India Students’ Federation (AISF), and thus the historians remember him as the Pioneer of Sindh Students’ Federation, a chapter of AISF.

Ajeet Jawed, Professor, Department of Political Science, Satyawati College, New Delhi, in her article on Comrade Sobho Gianchandani, another legend of Sindh, writes that ‘the pioneering role in uniting the students of Sindh was played by Hashu Kewalramani, a journalist trained at the United Kingdom (UK)’.

“He organized the students and brought them under the banner of the All India Students Federation with himself as the President and Kishin Motwani and Abhichandani as its General Secretaries”, Ajeet writes.

Very soon the organization became a powerful movement and spread to all the towns of Sindh. At Karachi an office was set up to solve the problems of the students and to discuss the political issues. Pritam Tahiliani, Santosh Kumar Dharmani, Rocho Pardasani, Sarla Ahuja, Moti Motwani, Radhakrishnan Wadhwani, Sukhram Virwani, Rijhu Abichandani, Rochi Pardasani, and Hashu’s own younger brother (Gopi alias Gope) were active members of the AISF. Some of them worked as whole-timers. Besides the AISF, the Student’s Congress, which was a part of the All India Congress, was also active under the leadership of Tulsi Tahiliani. But the AISF was more powerful, more representative, and had more members and following. Its branches were set up in different parts of Sindh.

At Sukkur, in 1940, a conference of the Sindh students was organized. C.T Valecha, a prominent leader of the Congress and member of the Legislative Assembly, Sindh, wanted Indira Gandhi, daughter of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to preside. However, all the students with Leftist views wanted Muqimuddin Farooqi, a student of Delhi University, and at that time the General Secretary of the AISF, to preside. They succeeded and Farooqi presided over the Sukkur Students’ Conference.

Despite differences, all the students belonging to different student organizations unitedly opposed the dragging of India into the Second World War and organized demonstrations against the government. The most impressive event in the annals of this organization, according to Baldev T. Gajra, a Congress leader in Sindh, was the holding of an anti-imperialist demonstration on September 1, 1940 in Karachi. Thousands of students joined the demonstration and shouted anti-British and anti-war slogans. The authorities, alarmed at the rise and militancy of the student movement, came down heavily upon the organizers. They arrested a large number of students including Hashu Kewalramani, President of the AISF, Pritam Tahilramani and Santosh Kumar Dharmani. Hashu Kewalramani was prosecuted and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment.

However, the authorities failed to suppress the revolutionary spirit of the students. Immediately after the arrest and imprisonment of Hashu Kewalramani, Sobho Gianchandani took over the leadership of the student community of Sindh. In 1941 the AISF organized and led a strike against the enhancement of fee in all the colleges of Karachi. Narayan M. Wadhwani, Parcho Vidyarthi, and Sital Daryanani were also in the forefront and organized the students in Metharam and Sewa Kunj hostels and brought them in the agitation. The Union succeeded in getting the fee reduced and got the instalment system introduced.

Under Sobho’s stewardship the AISF became highly popular. To make the students aware of socialism and the achievements of the Russian Revolution, study classes were organized. Sobho used to deliver lectures and was respected by the entire student community.

Another historian Dayo Nathani, in his book ‘Karachi students on the march’, published in 1946, states that Hashu used to publish and distribute posters against British imperialism. One of such posters had a photo of long military shoe with the caption ‘Stop this march of imperialism’. Dayo Nathani writes that Hashoo was arrested along with other students and was first imprisoned for 18 months in 1940-41 and again for two months in 1942. “However, he again became active to organize the students soon as was released from jail, and left for a tour of entire Sindh along with Sobho Gianchandani”.

I will conclude my piece here, as it requires several books to write on life, struggle and works of Hashu Kewalramani, whose death in 1986 is still a mystery.

_____________________

The author is a senior journalist and Chief Editor, Sindh Courier, based in Karachi.     

The post The Black Day when Hashu Kewalramani was forced to leave Sindh first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Zaffar Junejo 

The pre-1947 history of Sindh’s higher education, in broad terms, can be divided into three eras: early history, the Muslim period and the British colonial period. And the colonial period (1843-1947) can be further divided into four distinct phases: a) 1843 to 1887, b) 1887 to 1922, c) 1922-1937, and d) 1937-1947.

It is true that some periods of Sindh’s ancient history yield a blank when we look for evidence about the education system and whereabouts of institutions. However, one cannot easily accept that Indus valley, having advanced human settlements like Mohan-Jo-Daro, would be without its own educational system. I think it will remain a mystery until the Indus script is deciphered.

In the Muslim period, some towns in Sindh were known for having educational institutions. In 1699, Captain Alexander Hamilton observed that “Thatta is famous in teaching of Philosophy, Politics and Theology, and there are four hundred colleges.” Likewise, old Sindh Gazetteers stated that in all respects Thatta and Rohri were University Towns, and Bukkur was also aspiring to become such a town.

As such, however, it is the colonial period whose educational history is associated with establishing higher education institutions in Sindh. The first period could be marked from 1843. The second period started in 1887 when D.J. Sindh College, Karachi, was founded. The establishment of D.G. National College in Hyderabad in 1922 marks the beginning of the third period. The fourth period started in 1937 with the foundation of NED College, Karachi, and continued till 1947.

Dr. M.J. Jackson, the Principal of D.J. College, Karachi, was the first one who conceived the idea that Sindh needed a separate university. Afterwards, in 1924 the Bombay University Reforms Committee deliberated on it, and later on, the idea was included inthe terms of reference of yjr Dow Committee. Professor Aiajz Ahmed Qureshi was of the view that over a period, Persram Jethmal through his The Builder magazine promoted the idea of Sindh University. Much later, in May 1940, G.M. Syed being the Education Minister called a small education conference to consider the question of establishing Sindh University. Around one month later on the 24th of June 1940, a Sindh University Committee was appointed under the Sindh Government Resolution, General Department No. 607-B/40.

The committee consisted of 15 members. It was made bound to submit its report to the Government of Sindh within six months.The first meeting of the committee was held on the 6th of July 1940. In the same meeting, a sub-committee was formed: its members were Diwan Rupchand Bilram, Dr. U.M Daudpota, Dr. G.T. Wrench, S.B. Junnakar, Professor L.H. Ajwani and Professor A.L. Shaikh. The secretary of the committee was asked to draft a questionnaire – covering various aspects of the would-be-university. It was also resolved that the questionnaire would be finalized by the 23rd of July, 1940. The proposed meeting to finalize the questionnaire was, however, held on the 10th of August, in which the draft was improved and then posted to 150 academics within and outside Sindh.

Surprisingly, the committee received only 26 responses by the 30th of October, 1940. As a parallel exercise, the committee nominated three persons to visit various universities of India to observe their working. The nominated persons were assigned different geographical areas: Professor T.M. Advani was deputed to visit universities of Punjab, Delhi, Agra, Aligarh, Allahabad, Lucknow and Banaras. Likewise, Professor Jethmal Parsram and Professor B.J. Vaswani were asked to visit Bombay, Madras, Annamalai, Travancore and Osmania. By the end of November 1940, both committees submitted their reports. The written responses were given to the committee members, and a process was started to document oral suggestions of those who failed to send their written responses. The documentation was completed on the 10th of January, 1941. At that time, the issue of time lapse aroused. Therefore, the Governor of Sindh was approached to extend the time limit. The request was approved, and the committee was allowed to complete the task by the 31st of December, 1941.

There might be more than one reason for the delay in the work of the committee. Among the main factors was the fact that some members were from out of Karachi. And the preparation of Terms of Reference also took a long time. Again, the committee took a considerable amount of time for reading and reviewing the draft. Finally, the committee signed the document on the 22nd of December, 1941, for submission to the Government.

Simple observations regarding the attendance of the committee members show interesting results. The committee’s first meeting was held on the 6th of July, 1941, and the last on the 22nd of December. As many as 29 meetings were held. However, the attendance of individual members varied. The calculation reveals that out of 29 meetings, Sayed Miran Muhammad Shah and Professor B.J. Vaswani attended 28 meetings; Professor L.H. Ajwani was present in 27 meetings; S.B. Junnarker attended 26 meetings; Professor T.M. Advani appeared in 23 meetings and Professor Jethmal Parsram attended 22 meetings. Likewise, the attendance of Dr. T. J. Mirchandani was 17, Miss F. Muhammadali attended 16 meetings, Mr. Hatim A. Alavi was present in 14 meetings, Dr. M.U. Daudpota and Diwan Rupchand Bilaram attended 13 meetings, Dr. G.T. Wrench appeared in 11 meetings and Dr. H.M. Gurbuxani showed his presence in 10 meetings. The lowest attendees were Allama I.I. Kazi and N. B. Butani, with only two and one meetings respectively. Dr. G.T. Wrench resigned due to want of time. A simple calculation reveals that the average attendance was 10. The committee members also had differences of opinion about the security of minority rights, as well as the very type of institution being considered – i.e. whether the university should inculcate cultural and human aspects among its alumni, or it ought to train students to make them useful in new disciplines. There was also the question of affiliation with the Bombay University in the meantime.

Quite some time ago, M. H. Panhwar told this scribe that insecurity among Sindhi Hindus was embedded in the movement for Sindh’s separation from Bombay. The movement pushed Sindhi Hindus to realize that from now on, they would have to live as a minority. Therefore, in each policy forum, their concern was to secure their rights. He added that the separation movement broke the old spiritual bonds amongst residents of Sindh. The new situation demanded constitutional guarantees. Apart from it, another contradiction among the Sindh University Committee members was competence and relevance. Some of the members were highly qualified and had rich experience in managing educational institutes. And on the other hand, some were simple graduates with zero literary experience. Therefore, the committee was not able to perform smoothly. He concluded that on paper it seemed robust, but its members’ incompatible competence slowed its functioning.

Finally, the committee proposed that Sindh needed a university address specific purposes such as to train selected youth for leadership (the University had to make them effective individuals as well as responsible citizen); create new knowledge with a focus on aeronautics, marine biology, marine engineering, irrigation, agriculture and rural economics; preserve and promote Sindh’s culture, literature, history, philosophy and language; and train students in appropriate professions with an understanding to make them economically independent. The committee also suggested that Sindh University’s Senate would decide about the facilities.

Moreover, the committee proposed that structures such as a Research Council, Library Board and Board of Studies should be established in the University. The functions of the Research Council were to initiate and assess research schemes of the departments, review the progress, approve fellowships, manage grants and advise the government or the university. The task of the Library Board was more administrative, its duties were suggesting books, keeping relevant records, and reporting to the University Senate. The Board of Studies committee proposed 17 boards. These were: a) Sindhi language, literature, and culture, b) English, c) Sanskrit, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, d) Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and Avesta Pahlavi, e) Latin, Greek, French, German, f) History, Economics, Sociology, Politics, Archaeology and Geography, g) Philosophy, h) Mathematics, i) Education, j) Fine Arts, k) Physics and Chemistry, l) Biology and Hygiene, m) Agriculture and Forestry, n) Engineering, o) Law, p) Medicine and q) Military and Physical Education.

The last Board of Studies, titled ‘Military and Physical Education,’ was not a common domain for any general university at that time. However, it could be speculated that it was an outcome of Sindhi’s sense of insecurity. It could be because Sindh was one of the provinces which lacked a trained paramilitary force, although its most neighboring provinces or distant neighbors had their own militaries, levies or armed communities – or at the very least, in their micro-sociology, weapons played a decisive role. On the contrary, Sindh’s strategic position and well-developed infrastructure – railways, Karachi city, airport and seaport – were tempting all manner of people, some of whom were seen to be aggressive and violent in their nature. Perhaps, then, this is the first official document which shows how Sindhis tried to address their insecurity. However, the proposed document didn’t discuss in detail as to how that particular Board of Studies would secure the interests of Sindh.

Click here for Part-I

__________________

Dr. Zaffar Junejo is Research Scholar, Department of History University of Malaya, Malaysia. Mr. Junejo apart from scholarly contribution also writes for popular media. He could be accessed at: Email junejozi@gmail.com, Cell/WhatsApp +92 334 045 5333 Skype Zaffar.Junejo Facebook facebook.com/zaffar.junejo

Courtesy: The Friday Times Naya Daur Lahore (Published on September 4, 2021) 

The post Sindh University: Nostalgic Space Of Our Collective Memory – II first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Shortly, Iskander Mirza was exiled to London 

Eric Rahim

(Excerpts from an article which shares brief glimpses of the political landscape of the subcontinent, with emphasis on Pakistan, from the viewpoint of the author – as a student, a journalist and an active member of the communist party from the late 1930s to the 1950s)

The origin of the separate electorates system goes back to the latter part of the 19th century when the British government had established a uniform system of administration throughout the sub-continent. In due course the issue of some form of Indian participation in the administration (at local level with a limited franchise) arose. Muslim leaders argued that as the Hindus were numerically a much larger community, Muslims would always be under- represented in elected institutions relatively to their number. The issue was important because, it was argued, that the Muslims were not only a minority community, but also they were in a weaker position in business and industry, professions and education. Therefore, in order to safeguard their interests: (a) the number of seats in elected bodies be allocated to each community according to the numerical size of the community, and (b) that constituencies be determined on the basis of religion so that there would be Muslim constituencies in which only Muslims could vote, and similarly for the Hindus. This principle of separate electorates was accepted and then adopted as a general rule applicable to all religious communities.

After the creation of Pakistan, Muslims were in overwhelming majority; in West Pakistan minority communities formed no more than two – if that – percent of the population. Muslims now needed no safeguards.

However, the principle of separate electorates was more than just about the safeguards. It was an institution signifying the separateness of the Muslim community from all other communities. It was an ideology. It was Islam that provided the bond of a shared national identity to diverse Muslim ethnic communities that now formed Pakistan. This is the standpoint that Daultana and other Muslim League leaders from West Pakistan espoused. As noted, the people of East Pakistan did not share this standpoint.

The principal concern of Ghafar Khan, Abdul Samad Achakzai and G. M. Syed’s parties was provincial autonomy, abolition of One-Unit, and loose federal structure in which the provinces would enjoy a large measure of autonomy.  

It was at this time in Dhaka that the decision to form the National Awami (People’s) Party (NAP) was taken. Mian Iftikharuddin kept me informed of the progress of the discussions, and I reported on the final decision in The Pakistan Times. The new party was to be formed through the merger of certain existing opposition parties and groups. Maulana Bhashani, a prominent leader of the Awami League (East Pakistan), an anti-imperialist and a staunch advocate of radical economic and social reforms had broken away from his party which was now part of the government led by Prime Minister Suhrawardy. He had a strong popular and religious appeal. (Mian Iftikharuddin once jokingly asked me if I thought Bhashani was such a man of God as he pretended to be and as his followers believed). Equally radical was Mian Iftikharuddin’s Azad (free, independent) Pakistan Party (APP) – also staunchly anti-imperialist and advocating radical economic and social reforms. APP was largely operating in Punjab and Karachi, while, at this time, Bhashani’s following was confined to East Pakistan. These two were the genuinely Left groupings.

GM Syed was president of the Pakistan-Soviet Cultural Association

Then there were, what we may call, nationalist groupings. These were Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgars (God’s Servants) based entirely in the North West Frontier Province, Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai’s Wrore Pakhtun (Pakhtun Brotherhood) confined to Balochistan and closely aligned with Ghaffar Khan, and GM Syed’s Sindhi Mahaz (Front) based in Sindh. GM Syed was president of the Pakistan-Soviet Cultural Association, and as secretary of the Association I came to know him on friendly terms. The principal concern of these three parties was provincial autonomy; they wanted, above all, destruction of One Unit and a loose federal structure in which the provinces would enjoy a large measure of autonomy. Their concern with economic and social reforms (e.g. radical land reforms) in their province was minimal. They could not by any measure be considered as parties of the Left.

The common ground between these nationalist parties on the one hand and Maulana Bhashani and Mian Iftikharuddin on the other consisted of secular politics (none of them subscribed to the kind of Islamic ideology to which the Muslim League adhered), a genuinely federal system, and their agreement on a non-aligned foreign policy, the kind India had adopted.

Because of their different perspectives on economic and social reforms and the narrow nationalism of the three nationalist parties, the newly formed party, the National Awami Party, was never able to achieve the kind of internal coherence that was needed for its development. With the martial law in 1958, like all other parties, it was banned. After the ban was lifted the party broke up in different factions. Even in East Pakistan the party was split into the Bhashani and anti-Bhashani factions.

While in Dhaka, I was able to see the leaders of the East Pakistan Communist Party (which despite the ban and repressive measures adopted against it had remained intact). Sardar Fazlul Karim, a communist member of the new constituent assembly, with whom I had become friendly, had arranged the meeting. I faced four leaders, as if I was being interviewed. They made me talk most of the time, asking questions about the situation of the party in West Pakistan, about the political situation generally, and about individual leaders of various parties in the western wing. I asked them about the Awami League as part of the central government. They did not think the ‘honeymoon’ with the ruling junta would last long. As it turned out, Suhrawardy was out in a year’s time. After the meeting Sardar Fazlul Karim told me that all the four leaders I had met were members of the politburo. I felt greatly honored.

The communist party activity in Punjab was even more depressing than what it was in Karachi. In fact, the party in Punjab had ceased to exist – there was hardly any activity.

Sometime in the beginning of 1957 I decided to move to Lahore. Party activity in Karachi, now underground, was at a low ebb. Also, I felt that I needed change in my professional work. The editor agreed to my transfer to Lahore.

The party activity in Punjab was even more depressing than what it was in Karachi. In fact, the party in Punjab had ceased to exist – there was hardly any activity. The members of the old central committee (who were based in Lahore) were engaged in other activities. Eric Cyprian was teaching full time in a college. He had a degree in English from Oxford University, and before becoming a whole-timer in 1945 or 1946 he was a lecturer in Forman Christian College. Mohammed Afzal had departed for London where he was doing chartered accountancy. Sibte Hasan was working full time as editor of the newly-launched (by Progressive Papers Ltd.) Lail-o-Nihar. Aslam Chaudhri was in full time legal practice. Firozuddin Mansoor was in poor health. The only exception was Mirza Ibrahim. He continued his work in the railwaymen’s union which could function openly.

I had been transferred to Lahore but no decision had been taken as to the nature of my duties. On my own initiative I wrote some articles. I remember writing one on the famous Lahore Museum and noting that in order not to offend the sensitivities of visitors, the director had covered the nudity of some the female exhibits with pieces of cloth. I suggested to the editor that the newspaper create a new position, that of a roving correspondent. He or she would visit neglected, relatively backward parts of Punjab (and eventually of the country as a whole) to highlight the economic and social problems facing the people in relatively deprived areas. To establish the feasibility of the idea I went to Shakargar, in Sialkot district, and wrote an article with the title ‘The God-Forsaken Shakargar’. The place was suggested by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who was born and brought up in that area. Although Faiz was the chief editor, he did not interfere in appointments, etc. The editor did not like the idea of a roving correspondent; instead, he gave me the position of a senior sub-editor.

I was reasonably content in my new position for about ten months. But then I began to feel restless. I was now approaching the age of 30 years. Was I going to spend the rest of my life in the newsroom sub-editing? I decided to study economics in the hope that I would become a columnist specializing in economic issues. I discussed the idea with the editor who agreed, and suggested a leave of absence of two to three years.

I decided to go to London to study economics. I do not recall why I did not choose to do my studies in Punjab University (Lahore). An old friend, Dr. Abbas, was head of the economics department there. He had been a party member in Karachi, had gone to Holland and obtained a Ph.D. in economics. Perhaps I needed a complete change of scenery.

I wrote to a friend who was studying at the London School of Economics (LSE). As noted earlier, SM Naseem had been an activist in the student movement of 1953, and was the editor of the Students Herald. After doing his MA in economics from Karachi University he had gone to London to obtain a masters degree in statistics. He advised me to apply not only for admission to the London School of Economics (LSE) but also to University College London, which also had an economics department. This turned out to be excellent advice. I was not accepted at the LSE, but was offered a place in University College. This was for the session beginning in September 1958. All that I needed now was a passport.

I made an application at the Lahore Passport Office. When after about a fortnight I returned to the office to collect my passport, I was told that I needed a ‘clearance’ from the Punjab C. I. D. (Criminal Investigation Department). I knew this was going to be tricky business. There was no point in my going to the CID office and requesting the ‘clearance’.

I spoke to an old friend from my college days, who had joined the police force and risen to the position of inspector. He had then resigned, studied law and had become a lawyer. He was still in contact with his former boss, a deputy inspector general, now retired. My friend explained the problem to his old boss, who was sympathetic. He gave my friend his visiting card and advised that I see the superintendent of CID and give him the card. That is what I did. The superintendent asked me about my relationship with the retired DIG, who had also been his boss. I told him the truth. He told me that I would get the ‘clearance’. It could take a couple of weeks.

I returned to the passport office after two weeks, and was told that I needed another ‘clearance’, this from the Central Intelligence Bureau, Pakistan’s FBI. This was going to be trickier than getting the clearance from Punjab.

And so I travelled to Karachi. I renewed contact with my old journalist colleagues, and sought someone who had access to Mian Anwar Ali, the director of the Intelligence Bureau (Pakistan’s Edgar J. Hoover). After much exploration someone suggested that as Nawab Qizilbash was a good friend of Mian Anwar Ali he might be able to help. Qizilbash was a Punjabi grandee, a feudal lord, a former Punjab Minister and close to the ruling circles.

I knew Qizilbash as a journalist, but not too well. Fortunately, it turned out that a friend of mine happened to know him much better. Asrar Ahmed (one of the founders of the Karachi Union of Journalists) and I made an appointment with Qizilbash, and explained the reason for our visit. He was sympathetic and called Mian Anwar Ali on the phone. After some pleasantries he came to the point. Mian Anwar Ali was telling Qizilbash that Eric Rahim was a dangerous man, and Qizilbash was saying that it was all the more reason that he should be allowed to get out of the country, perhaps for good. Eventually, Mian Anwar Ali relented. I could collect my passport from the Foreign Office in about ten days.

We were now into October (1958). The academic session in University College would already have started. It would take me at least another two weeks to get to London. I had missed the session. I sent a telegram to the admissions office of University College saying that because of the problems in obtaining the passport I would not be able to make it.

But I was going to collect my passport anyway. After about ten days of the meeting with Qizilbash I went to the Foreign Office. There I was told that my passport was ready for collection. It was a restricted passport, valid only for four countries and for three years, and that it could not be renewed without reference to the Foreign Office. It was also conditional on my making a signed declaration that while abroad I would not engage in any political activities. I refused to sign the declaration and returned to Lahore without the passport.

Back in Lahore I consulted my friend Major Mohammed Ishaq, a former Rawalpindi ‘conspirator’, now a communist and practicing at the Lahore High Court. Would it be feasible to make an application to the Lahore High Court asking whether the government had the right to deny me an unrestricted passport for the legitimate purpose of studying abroad, and to demand an undertaking that while abroad I should not participate in any legitimate political activity?

We decided to meet in his chambers near the Mall Road to discuss this question. It was the 7th of October (1958). As I was getting ready to leave the house for my meeting with Major Ishaq my younger brother rushed in to inform me that he had heard it on the BBC that President Iskander Mirza had declared martial law in the country and that General Ayub Khan, commander-in-chief of the army, was to be the martial law administrator.

I saw Major Ishaq and we both agreed that the best thing I could do was to try to leave the country as soon as possible. (Major Ishaq was arrested soon afterwards.) I sent a telegram to University College informing them that I had succeeded in obtaining the passport and inquiring if there was still a place for me on the course. Within a day I received a telegram back with a positive response.

I travelled to my village to bid farewell to my parents, and then to Karachi. I went to the Foreign Office, signed the declaration they had demanded and received the passport. In the first week of November – I remember it was Guy Fawkes night – I was in London. My friends SM Naseem and MA Shakoor were at Victoria Terminal to receive me. It was the beginning of a new life.

Footnote

During my short stay in Karachi preparing to leave for London I was contacted by Abbas Khalili, secretary of the Ministry of Industries. I knew Khalili quite well in my capacity as a journalist. But more importantly, I knew him at a social level as a close friend of mine, Jaffer Naqvi, was engaged to be married to one of his nieces. He knew he could trust me. He gave me a letter for his wife who lived in London. At this time he did not wish to communicate with her through the normal channels.

Iskandar Mirza had been the joint defence secretary in the last days of British India, the first secretary of defence after the creation of Pakistan, a position in which he had wielded enormous power, he had been governor of East Pakistan, then governor general, and finally president of the country under the 1956 constitution which he had scrapped. Here he was at the beginning of his exile in London.

The reason for this was that Iskander Mirza, who had as president of the country declared martial law and appointed Ayub Khan as the martial law administrator had been booted out by Ayub Khan. As Mirza belonged to the Shia sect of Islam there was a great deal of nervousness among the top bureaucrats who belonged to the same sect. Khalili was a Shia too.

Immediately after arriving in London I phoned Mrs. Khalili to inform her that I had a letter for her from her husband and that I would come to her house to deliver it as soon as my registration at University College had been completed. I was already five weeks late. She was very anxious about her husband and she wanted the letter immediately. She would come and see me the same day to collect the letter. That is what she did, and invited me to her house in Putney.

On the appointed day I arrived at her house and was warmly welcomed. There were about four other guests. As I was chatting to one of them I noted a new arrival. Guess who? Iskandar Mirza. This man had been the joint defence secretary in the last days of British India, the first secretary of defence after the creation of Pakistan, a position in which he had wielded enormous power, he had been governor of East Pakistan, then governor general, and finally president of the country under the 1956 constitution which he had scrapped. Here he was at the beginning of his exile in London. He looked smaller than what I had thought. He looked at me and nodded in recognition – he knew me by face in my capacity as a journalist. I nodded back. I wondered if I should go and speak to him. But what could I say? ‘How are you Mr. Mirza today?’ No, I did not speak to him. Later, as I was leaving I went up to him and said goodbye and shook his hand. But I did not say ‘good luck, Mr. Mirza’. (Concludes) 

_______________

Eric Rahim, Glasgow, 14 October 2018.

Courtesy: Criterion Quarterly (Published on March 31, 2019)

Click here for Part-I , Part-II , Part-III , Part-IV 

The post A Memoir of the 1950s – Part-V first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Zaffar Junejo

(Author’s Note: One Unit was dissolved on 1st July, 1970. Sindhi nation along with Bengalis, Balochis, and Pathans fought against it through platforms of cultural associations, literary organizations and political parties. By and large One Unit was opposed across Pakistan however the Anti-One Unit Movement’s epicenter was Sindh. Sindh opposed One Unit because it was considered a tool to alter its demography, grab resources and strategically control wealth of the province. Sindhi nationalists, supported by other political parties forged an association to realize one point agenda – dismantle One Unit. They carried the struggle in all odd and even situations, and bore the cost – jails, punishments, insults, life threats and issuing of ‘certificates’ of disloyalty and treachery but they continued their struggles, and got it undone – Sindh was restored with its full name, and titles.

In 2020, an idea was floated by some Sindh-lovers that Sindh has to celebrate Anti-One Unit Abolition Day as the Golden Jubilee event, just to cherish, and recall the successful struggle of Sindhi peoples. In this regard, the author intends to translate some of the basic and most relevant documents from Sindhi language into English, in sprit of celebration and remembrance. The first in the series is Saeen GM Syed’s article: One Unit Jo Qiyam: Mukhalfan Ja Khadsha and Muwafqan Ja Faidi Mean Dalil (Formation of One Unit: Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor).

The article is taken from the booklet: One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit).  The book was authored by GM Syed and published by Yar Muhammad Ibin Hayat Panhwar, Secretary Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, Markazi Office, Al-Khalil Building, Qazi Qayoum Road, Hyderabad. Its printer was Begum Zeenat Channa, ‘Zeenat Printers’ Khokhar Mahlo Hyderabad. Its first edition with 2000 copied came in November, 1969 – Dr. Zaffar Junejo.)

One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit) – X

GM Syed

Pakistan Jamhuri Party

The groups included in the above party are:

1. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali’s group (he was founder of One Unit and strong supporter).
2. Mian Nurul Amin’s group (he was expelled and disliked by Bengalis)
3. Nawabzada Nasurullah’s group (He is supporter of One Unit and expansionist)
4. Retired Air Marshal Asghar Khan (Honest, harmless, simpleton, and totally ignorant about political tricks)

Till now the program made by these groups is larger even from the Satan’s intestine. I have reviewed and understood it, and I have inferred that they demand:

1. 

   The Constitution of 1956 should be accepted immediately, and One Unit’s question let be resolved by the Constituent Assembly. If it is so, then who knows that according to the Constitution of 1956, how One Unit could be constitutionally dissolved?

2. This party believes that opponents of One Unit are agents of foreign countries, the enemy of Islam, anarchists, provincialists and anti-Pakistan. The mission of this party is known to all patriotic persons of small provinces. Therefore, there is no need to write more or explain more. Honestly, we have concluded that this party first of all intends to serve ‘permanent interest’ of the residents of Punjab, and in doing so, it exploited Bhutto Saheb’s leadership. Now, Air Marshal Asghar Khan is their new leader and they have deserted Bhutto Saheb.

Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz

In another essay, I have briefly written on history, objectives, and methodology of Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz. Therefore, in the present write-up, I would describe what compelled us to form Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, and through its platform, what we want to achieve:

1. All-Pakistan parties’ leadership mostly hailed from big province. Therefore, in such case small provinces’ parties, which intend to struggle for the constitutional rights shouldn’t jump into the boast, which is rowed by unskilled and greedy boatman.
2. Presently, the pressing constitutional issue of the small provinces is abolishing of One Unit and restoration of old provinces. According to the thinkers of Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, till now all India as well as all Pakistan parties have never resolved issues of smaller provinces. On the other hand, whenever we dissolved our parties in their parties, we lose our identity, and distinguish status. Most of the time, we remained disarrayed and gradually our exploitation continued.
3. We are of the views that next Constituent Assembly’s role would be to make the constitution rather than the law. Therefore, it is possible that from the period of the constitution making till elections of national assemblies and provincial assemblies, government and power would remain with the same leadership. If it happened, then none should expect welfare, revolutionary steps, and constructive programs.
4. We want to establish Mutaheda Mahaz in Sindh, and afterwards intend to open the Fronts (Mahazs) in other provinces, and then all these Fronts would form a collective Mahaz (Front), it would work with Bengal’s parties for abolishing One Unit. The Front (Mahaz) would surely form an alliance with them, but it wouldn’t dissolve itself into any of the party. We should understand that there is different between alliance and merger.
5. Presently, our alliance is fixed around one agenda, abolishing of One Unit, and restoration of old provinces based on language and culture. It must be understood that members of the alliance have different ideologues: some of them are supporters of Shariat, others are promoters of Socialism, and another group promotes Capitalism. However, in the alliance, there is only one goal – abolish One Unit, and restore old provinces. Afterwards, all are free to work according their ideas and situations, such as establishing of the welfare state or other programs.
6. We should be very much clear that acceptance of the Constitution of 1956, approval of zonal federation, and confrontation with Bengal’s lead political parties would ultimately create hurdles in the dismantling of One Unit.
7. Currently, it is vindicated that raising of personal issues, highlighting the groups’ interests, indulging in ideological discussions around economic issues, and igniting religious and non-religious issues would break our unity and disturb the collective aim. Thus the emerged situation would encourage others to take advantage and convey Bengal’s major parties that leadership of smaller provinces is infighting to each other it is immature. Therefore, there is no need to form an alliance with them.
8. We will participate in the election, particularly with one agenda abolishing of One Unit, and restoration of old provinces. We will take a solemn promise from our candidates that they would never endorse the Constitution of 1956, and also reject the proposal of zonal federation. If anyone deviates from this principle of Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz and retains his party’s identity, then we have right to assume that he has trade off national interests for his personal gains. On the contrary, his apparent acts against One Unit wouldn’t be trusted.
9. The office bearers of Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz will be away from taking ministries, it is decided so, as they could keep an eye on the elected members, and be able to communicate confidently to the people that their aim was neither power nor personal interest.
10. We have established Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz’s central office at Al-Khalil Building, Qazi Abdul Qayyum Road. We also plan to establish offices in the district headquarters and talukas.
11. Initially, we have formed a working Committee and have started work. Soon the Council, District bodies, including Taluka bodies would be formed, and we have already appealed the people to form village branches.
12. Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz’s constitution and program would be prepared soon.
13. The members of other party could be part of our upcoming constitutional assembly election drive, if they have agreed to the principle of abolishing One Unit and restoration of old provinces. If their parties support One Unit, and they uphold the agreed principle, then their action would be considered loyal to the cause.
14. We believe in persuasion, trust in change of heart, and try utmost that all people should join us. But, if someone avoids and not be with us, then we reserve our right to get an explanation form to him about his detachment, and we also have right to aware the people about his position. (First chapter of the book Ends)  

_________________

Dr. Zaffar Junejo has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Malaya. His areas of interest are post-colonial history, social history and peasants’ history.

Click here for Part-I , Part-II, Part-III, Part-IV , Part-V , Part-VI, Part-VII, Part-VIII , Part-IX 

The post Sindh’s struggle for abolition of One Unit – X first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Zaffar Junejo

(Author’s Note: One Unit was dissolved on 1st July, 1970. Sindhi nation along with Bengalis, Balochis, and Pathans fought against it through platforms of cultural associations, literary organizations and political parties. By and large One Unit was opposed across Pakistan however the Anti-One Unit Movement’s epicenter was Sindh. Sindh opposed One Unit because it was considered a tool to alter its demography, grab resources and strategically control wealth of the province. Sindhi nationalists, supported by other political parties forged an association to realize one point agenda – dismantle One Unit. They carried the struggle in all odd and even situations, and bore the cost – jails, punishments, insults, life threats and issuing of ‘certificates’ of disloyalty and treachery but they continued their struggles, and got it undone – Sindh was restored with its full name, and titles.

In 2020, an idea was floated by some Sindh-lovers that Sindh has to celebrate Anti-One Unit Abolition Day as the Golden Jubilee event, just to cherish, and recall the successful struggle of Sindhi peoples. In this regard, the author intends to translate some of the basic and most relevant documents from Sindhi language into English, in sprit of celebration and remembrance. The first in the series is Saeen GM Syed’s article: One Unit Jo Qiyam: Mukhalfan Ja Khadsha and Muwafqan Ja Faidi Mean Dalil (Formation of One Unit: Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor).

The article is taken from the booklet: One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit).  The book was authored by GM Syed and published by Yar Muhammad Ibin Hayat Panhwar, Secretary Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, Markazi Office, Al-Khalil Building, Qazi Qayoum Road, Hyderabad. Its printer was Begum Zeenat Channa, ‘Zeenat Printers’ Khokhar Mahlo Hyderabad. Its first edition with 2000 copied came in November, 1969 – Dr. Zaffar Junejo.)

One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit) – IX

GM Syed

Pakistan Peoples’ Party

The founder of this party is Zulifkar Ali Bhutto; he was part of General Ayub Khan’s government for eight years as a minister; he was his right hand man, and prominent worker of the Convention Muslim League. He was very much supportive of General Ayub Khan, according to Fazil-u-Qadir and others; he is answerable for following actions:

1. He even didn’t avoid suggesting that Deputy Commissioners and Police Superintendents should be nominated as office bearers for the Convention Muslim League.
2. All Mullahs and Moulvis, who are involved in politics, should be killed with bullets.
3. Muslim nation in its history has only produced two persons: One Salahuddin Ayubi and second General Ayub (Note: highlights are of author).
4. One of the lead objectives of the Convention Muslim League was the formation of One Unit; I have already discussed it in the preceding paragraphs. Now question is why he didn’t show his patriotism at that time?
5. He supported Ayub Khan against Ms. Fatima Jinnah. Although, it was known to him that Ms. Jinnah is sister of Quaid-e-Azam.
6. How he got support from capitalists and members to popularize Ayub Khan’s party.

Now the question before us is that after such services, why he was expelled from the ministry?

In the response to that question, these might be possible replies:

1. a) He opposed and exposed General Ayub Khan’s acceptance of “Tashkent Declaration” as a treason, and propagated against him. Therefore, he was ousted!
2. b) Ayub Khan’s concerns about his loyalty, the pressure of the foreign countries, or he worked against the interests of Pakistan. Therefore, he was expelled from the ministry!

Presently, he is away from influence of Ayub Khan. Therefore, he could share his side of the story. But, till now he is silent, therefore, it seems that reasons for his ousting would remain a secret.

He exposed malpractices and corruptions that happened in Ayub’s era, people agreed to him and he was opposed by none.  But, now the situation is changed, and the constitution is being framed.

Presently, the question before us is that how this young man, a resident of Sindh, a handsome person, having an attractive personality would play his role to liberate Sindh from the One Unit – it is really a serious question.

Bhutto Sahib’s following four points confuse us a lot:

1. His speech at Sindh University that he couldn’t scarify Punjab’s interests for Sindh.
2. His speech in Punjab that he is opponent of One Unit. But agreed to accept the constitution of 1956, if certain amendments are made.
3. He has never spoken a single word against the zonal federation.
4. He is against One Unit, but opposes Awami League’s ‘six point’ agenda, and he knows that it is the lead party of East Pakistan. In addition to that, he fully understands that without the support of Bengalis One Unit couldn’t be abolished.

Another concern is his workers’ indulgence in the following activities, and their attitude is beyond our understanding:

1. In his newspaper, why Pir Pagaro is being taunted?
2. Why he (Mr. Bhutto) encourages his workers to call a pious man like Muhammad Qasim as an infidel?
3. Why his workers label prominent workers of Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz as ‘Indian agents’, ‘supporters of feudal lords’, ‘maternal-grandsons of Raja Dahar’, and ‘ruins of Moen-Jo-Daro’? What is rationality to demean political workers? What holds him back to be part of Sindhi brethren’s alliance ‘Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz’? How he would be able to free Sindh from One Unit, while he opposes Bengal and small provinces’ majority, (who are against One Unit)?

It is true that in young age, emotions never create a room for rationality. However, we sincerely advise him to leave such arrogance, and join Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz. The below mentioned couplet of Shah Latif is enough to open his eyes:

مَتَو آهِين مَڇَ، ٿُلُهو ٿَو ٿُونَا هَڻِين

جَا تَو ڏِٺِي اَڇَ، تَنهَن پَاڻِيءَ پُنَا ڏِينهَڙَا

_____________________

Dr. Zaffar Junejo has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Malaya. His areas of interest are post-colonial history, social history and peasants’ history.

Click here for Part-I , Part-II, Part-III, Part-IV , Part-V , Part-VI, Part-VII, Part-VIII 

The post Sindh’s struggle for abolition of One Unit – IX first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Zaffar Junejo

(Author’s Note: One Unit was dissolved on 1st July, 1970. Sindhi nation along with Bengalis, Balochis, and Pathans fought against it through platforms of cultural associations, literary organizations and political parties. By and large One Unit was opposed across Pakistan however the Anti-One Unit Movement’s epicenter was Sindh. Sindh opposed One Unit because it was considered a tool to alter its demography, grab resources and strategically control wealth of the province. Sindhi nationalists, supported by other political parties forged an association to realize one point agenda – dismantle One Unit. They carried the struggle in all odd and even situations, and bore the cost – jails, punishments, insults, life threats and issuing of ‘certificates’ of disloyalty and treachery but they continued their struggles, and got it undone – Sindh was restored with its full name, and titles.

In 2020, an idea was floated by some Sindh-lovers that Sindh has to celebrate Anti-One Unit Abolition Day as the Golden Jubilee event, just to cherish, and recall the successful struggle of Sindhi peoples. In this regard, the author intends to translate some of the basic and most relevant documents from Sindhi language into English, in sprit of celebration and remembrance. The first in the series is Saeen GM Syed’s article: One Unit Jo Qiyam: Mukhalfan Ja Khadsha and Muwafqan Ja Faidi Mean Dalil (Formation of One Unit: Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor).

The article is taken from the booklet: One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit).  The book was authored by GM Syed and published by Yar Muhammad Ibin Hayat Panhwar, Secretary Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, Markazi Office, Al-Khalil Building, Qazi Qayoum Road, Hyderabad. Its printer was Begum Zeenat Channa, ‘Zeenat Printers’ Khokhar Mahlo Hyderabad. Its first edition with 2000 copied came in November, 1969 – Dr. Zaffar Junejo.)

One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit) – VII

GM Syed

Awami League

Late Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy had launched this party. He always took care of the interests of Bengal. Therefore, he built his party on those lines, and made it popular in Bengal. However, he always thought that the military and bureaucracy have an important role in the affairs of the country.  Considering the majority of Punjabis, he was of view that that one couldn’t get power without their support. On the other hand, disputes, disagreement; disloyalty as well as treacherous-character of the small provinces’ leadership firmed his earlier opinion. We, who were opponents of One Unit, tried a lot that he should openly speak against One Unit, but we failed to get his support, and he never did it. He believed that after elections, with cooperation of one or other group from Punjab he would be able to get the power. However, the Martial Law of 1958 shattered his dream, he was shocked, and his political views changed. On 22nd September, 1962 I invited him at my Karachi bungalow, and there he was requested by majority of Sindh’s politicians to support us in getting the One Unit abolished. He agreed, but soon he died.

Afterwards, Awami League’s key leaders and active workers were imprisoned. However, we were already passing through the same situation. Last year, due to huge protests and rallies Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was freed from the jail. Soon after that he propagated his ‘six point program’ and on his own will he also included abolishing of One Unit, and restoration of the provinces in his party program.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s such move earned him a lot of respect and good will in small provinces. In addition to that his attitude in “Roundtable Conference” also encouraged and renewed our inspiration. He came to Sindh on 10th August, 1970, and Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz warmly welcomed him, and a number of political workers joined Awami League. Apart from that Awami League and Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz also signed an agreement. Such an agreement and unity disturbed the supporters of One Unit. Till now, to ditch our agreements, too many conspiracies have been hatched.  For instance:

1. They have propagandized that Awami League’s ‘Six Point Program’ is against Islam and Quran. In this way, they are creating doubts and distrust among people of smaller provinces. On the other hand, East Pakistan’s unimportant political parties are being pumped, promoted and portrayed as big parties with an intension to disturb Awami League and lower its importance.
2. They are trying to weaken the struggle of small provinces against One Unit and create conflicts among the people by raising issues of Zonal Federation as well as representation based on population. On the other hand, they have plans to accept some demands of Awami League, and conditioned it to sign an agreement with the parties which are supporting One Unit or launching a strong opposition against Awami League, and reduce its influence and power in East Pakistan.

Considering all these factors and situations, workers of small provinces have to be vigilant. In addition to that, they have to be careful and understand that:

1. Without Awami League’s support, it is impossible to dissolve One Unit.
2. All these parties: Convention League, Council League, Pakistan Jamhoori Party and Jamaat Islami are trying utmost to retain One Unit.

________________

Dr. Zaffar Junejo has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Malaya. His areas of interest are post-colonial history, social history and peasants’ history.

Click here for Part-I , Part-II, Part-III, Part-IV , Part-V , Part-VI 

The post Sindh’s struggle for abolition of One Unit – VII first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Zaffar Junejo

(Author’s Note: One Unit was dissolved on 1st July, 1970. Sindhi nation along with Bengalis, Balochis, and Pathans fought against it through platforms of cultural associations, literary organizations and political parties. By and large One Unit was opposed across Pakistan however the Anti-One Unit Movement’s epicenter was Sindh. Sindh opposed One Unit because it was considered a tool to alter its demography, grab resources and strategically control wealth of the province. Sindhi nationalists, supported by other political parties forged an association to realize one point agenda – dismantle One Unit. They carried the struggle in all odd and even situations, and bore the cost – jails, punishments, insults, life threats and issuing of ‘certificates’ of disloyalty and treachery but they continued their struggles, and got it undone – Sindh was restored with its full name, and titles.

In 2020, an idea was floated by some Sindh-lovers that Sindh has to celebrate Anti-One Unit Abolition Day as the Golden Jubilee event, just to cherish, and recall the successful struggle of Sindhi peoples. In this regard, the author intends to translate some of the basic and most relevant documents from Sindhi language into English, in sprit of celebration and remembrance. The first in the series is Saeen GM Syed’s article: One Unit Jo Qiyam: Mukhalfan Ja Khadsha and Muwafqan Ja Faidi Mean Dalil (Formation of One Unit: Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor)

The article is taken from the booklet: One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit).  The book was authored by GM Syed and published by Yar Muhammad Ibin Hayat Panhwar, Secretary Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, Markazi Office, Al-Khalil Building, Qazi Qayoum Road, Hyderabad. Its printer was Begum Zeenat Channa, ‘Zeenat Printers’ Khokhar Mahlo Hyderabad. Its first edition with 2000 copied came in November, 1969 – Dr. Zaffar Junejo.)

Formation of One Unit – Part- V

Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor

GM Syed

Council Muslim League

In fact, this party carried spiritual – inheritance of the Muslim League. Most of its members compared to workers of the Conventional Muslim League were mature, less opportunist, and relatively realistic. Although its main leadership also took part in the formation of One Unit and campaigned for it. But, around 1957 they noticed malpractices at the central level, and disagreements among provinces. Therefore, they concluded that One Unit Scheme has failed to unite the provinces, and had shattered common ground. Consequently, they realized that One Unit has waned hatred and catalyzed disintegration process. Therefore, they concluded that the existence of One Unit Scheme was not in benefit of even the people of Punjab. Resultantly, some top leadership of this party, for instance Mian Mumtaz Daultana, Sardar Bahadur Khan, Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Qazi Isa and Khanbahadur Khuhro contacted us. They signed the treaty with ‘Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz’ for the dissolution of One Unit.

Later on, this agreement created a basis to move One Unit dissolution resolution in the West Pakistan Assembly. Dr. Khan Saheb’s government opposed it, on that day by design, members consumed a lot of time in debates, and at the end, the Speaker played a trick and members walked out. Therefore, in this way the government succeeded to stop the Anti-One Unit resolution. Consequently, we, Muslim League, and Republican Party’s like-minded members raised the issue of ‘Grant’ and compelled Dr. Khan Saheb to resign. Therefore, for a brief time the Governor’s rule was imposed. Afterwards, members of the Republican Party came into senses. Soon through mediators they had a dialogue with us about the dissolution of One Unit.

Mirza Sikander initiated the process, and Pir Saheb Pagaro and some ex-ministers of the Republican Party mediated. Finally, the negotiations, led to have an agreement. The objective of the agreement was to disband One Unit, and re-instate the provinces. The agreement was signed by Sardar Abdul Rashid, Sarfraz Khan Noon, and Colonel Abid Hussain. At that time, Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz had disolved itself to form the National Awami Party. I presented both agreements in the meeting of the Working Committee of National Awami Party. The meeting was attended by a large number of members from Punjab. In fact, Mian Iftikharuddin and Mian Muhammad Ali convinced them to attend the meeting. However, number of attendees from the small provinces was low, perhaps due to short notice. In the Working Committee meeting, the majority rejected the Council Muslim League’s agreement, and voted in favour of the Republican agreement. Therefore, the Muslim League Assembly party was justified in saying that the Republican’s signed the agreement with the Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, because the Council Muslim League’s already signed agreement compelled them to do so, in addition to that they reminded that their part to get resignation from Dr. Khan’s government shouldn’t be ignored.

Obviously, the Council Muslim League considered rejecting of their agreement as a betrayal. However, in such awkward situation, they showed statesmanship, honesty and didn’t oppose One Unit dissolution resolution. In addition to that, they allowed Khanbahadur Khuhro’s group to vote in support of One Unit abolition resolution.

Afterwards, an opposition group of the Muslim League organized a campaign against Council Muslim League and Mian Mumtaz Daultana. The situation reached to the extreme level and it conditioned Council Muslim League to gather in Dhaka, and pass One Unit abolition resolution, which is still intact and never undone or rejected.

Presently, some sensible leaders of the Council Muslim League realized that One Unit has become a threat to small provinces, Punjab and even it has challenged the existence and uniformity of Pakistan. Therefore, their statements against One Unit started to appear in newspapers. Although, considering the upcoming election, they are afraid of workers of Jamat Islami, Conventional Muslim League, and Pakistan Jamhori Party. So, they support the constitution of 1956, and idea of the zonal federation. Thus, we may say that apparently they uphold the principle and accept that One Unit should be abolished. Although, in their constituencies they are afraid of voters, therefore, they support One Unit. Considering the situation, it has been realized that they would not act against popular trend, if some of them do, they might lose their seats. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect too much from them. If some people from us trust them, it indicates that they are either simpleton or in a way they also support the One Unit.

__________________

Dr. Zaffar Junejo has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Malaya. His areas of interest are post-colonial history, social history and peasants’ history.

Click here for Part-I , Part-II, Part-III, Part-IV 

The post Sindh’s struggle for abolition of One Unit – V first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Zaffar Junejo

(Author’s Note: One Unit was dissolved on 1st July, 1970. Sindhi nation along with Bengalis, Balochis, and Pathans fought against it through platforms of cultural associations, literary organizations and political parties. By and large One Unit was opposed across Pakistan however the Anti-One Unit Movement’s epicenter was Sindh. Sindh opposed One Unit because it was considered a tool to alter its demography, grab resources and strategically control wealth of the province. Sindhi nationalists, supported by other political parties forged an association to realize one point agenda – dismantle One Unit. They carried the struggle in all odd and even situations, and bore the cost – jails, punishments, insults, life threats and issuing of ‘certificates’ of disloyalty and treachery but they continued their struggles, and got it undone – Sindh was restored with its full name, and titles.

In 2020, an idea was floated by some Sindh-lovers that Sindh has to celebrate Anti-One Unit Abolition Day as the Golden Jubilee event, just to cherish, and recall the successful struggle of Sindhi peoples. In this regard, the author intends to translate some of the basic and most relevant documents from Sindhi language into English, in sprit of celebration and remembrance. The first in the series is Saeen GM Syed’s article: One Unit Jo Qiyam: Mukhalfan Ja Khadsha and Muwafqan Ja Faidi Mean Dalil (Formation of One Unit: Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor)

The article is taken from the booklet: One Unit Ji Kahani (The Story of One Unit).  The book was authored by GM Syed and published by Yar Muhammad Ibin Hayat Panhwar, Secretary Sindh Mutaheda Mahaz, Markazi Office, Al-Khalil Building, Qazi Qayoum Road, Hyderabad. Its printer was Begum Zeenat Channa, ‘Zeenat Printers’ Khokhar Mahlo Hyderabad. Its first edition with 2000 copied came in November, 1969 – Dr. Zaffar Junejo.)

Formation of One Unit

Opponents’ Apprehensions and Supporters’ Arguments in its favor

GM Syed

Since ancient times, Sindh, Sarhad (Now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), and Balochistan’s strategic locations and fertility, (and presently mines and minerals) have inculcated greed among outsiders and other nations. In this regard history has witnessed aggressions, invasions and intrigues of Mughals, Pathans, Sikhs, English people and foreigners.

When the independence from British Government became reality, and was not a distant dream – the question of the provinces’ status came under discussion – what their status should be in new situations. This question got different responses. One large group of Hindus was against Sindh’s separation from Bombay (Now Mumbai).

On the other hand, a large number of Indian Muslims was sympathetic to the provincial autonomy of Sindh, Sarhad and Baluchistan. Amidst that political turmoil, a group also existed that was of the opinion that provinces of the present West Pakistan should be grouped into one entity. If we look at Allama Iqbal’s ‘Allahabad Sermon’, it is vivid and states the same.

The scheme remained dormant until death of Quad-e-Azam and Nawabzada Liquat Ali Khan. Afterwards, conspiracies were hatched and schemes were designed. In this regard, one could quote Sardar Abdul Rashid Khan’s (former Chief Minister of Sarhad) scheme which he presented in the Constitutional Assembly. The document clearly argued in favor of unification.

Later, the proposed scheme was called, ‘X-Document.’ The document’s suggestions were implemented through various actions; some of them are briefly presented here:

1. Sir Nizamudin’s government was dismissed, although he was Prime Minister, as well as President of Muslim League Pakistan, and enjoyed the majority in the Constitutional Assembly. Immediately, Mr. Muhammad Ali Bogra, Pakistan’s Ambassador in America was called, nominated as Prime Minister and proposed as the President All Pakistan Muslim League. In those times, morale of the members of the Central Assembly, and councilors of All-Pakistan Muslim League was so shattered that change was accepted with a joy or regret, none knows.
2. Mr. Abdul Sattar Pirzado’s government was in majority in Sindh, and he was opponent of One Unit. Therefore, he was dismissed, and they brought in Khan Bahadur Muhammad Ayub Khuhro, although he was banned under PRODA. Immediately, all bars were removed. Mr. Khuhro was nominated Sindh’s Chief Minister, although he was not a member of Sindh Assembly. The coercive measures were applied against the weakest members of Sindh Assembly; they were compelled to support One-Unit. Resultantly, One Unit scheme resolution was passed by majority vote.
3. Hassan Mahmood’s Government in Bahawalpur was dismissed.
4. Sardar Abdul Rashid, who was Chief Minister of Sarhad, supporter of One Unit and had succeeded to pass it from Sarhad Assembly, was dismissed. It happened so, because he raised his voice and complained that he has been betrayed, and none of promises and guarantees had been realized.
5. Opponents of One Unit Scheme were threatened, pressurized, jailed and all means were used to harass them.
6. In 1954, the constituent assembly finalized the constitution, and it was ready to be signed by the Governor General. But, suddenly Ghulam Muhammad, Governor General announced the dissolution of the constitutional assembly. Soon, late Molvi Tamizuddin, the then Speaker of the constituent assembly filed a writ petition in Sindh High Court. The court verdict came against the action of the Governor General. The Governor General challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, rejected the decision of Sindh Court, and approved the action taken by the Governor General.

Afterwards, the Governor General through undemocratic means, and in same uncertain situations, got elected new constituent Assembly. Again, through various tricks and treacheries the constitution of 1956 was passed. (Continues)

__________________

Dr. Zaffar Junejo has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Malaya. His areas of interest are post-colonial history, social history and peasants’ history.

The post Sindh’s struggle for abolition of One Unit first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Zaffar Junejo

What should be the title of this article? I thought for a while. Immediately, two names came into my mind. One was ‘Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance’ authored by anthropologist James C. Scott, and second book was Kevin Grant’s ‘Last Weapons: Hunger Strikes and Fasts in the British Empire, 1890–1948.’ Although, both works portray different contexts, and texts, and apparently none of them have apparent relation to the present article. But, deep down there is message in both books ‘weak choose their own ways to resist the power’. This article also discussed how Sindhi youth has challenged power by choosing books over the state – sponsored ventures: violence, fundamentalism, crime, anti-women attitudes.

One week before 17th January, 2022, I attended a book launch event in Hyderabad. A considerable number of people reached in time, but organizer apologized with an announcement that event would be started a bit late. However, he compensated the attendees with a cup of tea. Soon, gathering divided into small groups. I also joined one group – it was of publishers. The common topic of their conversation was upcoming titles on Saeen GM Syed’s birthday. First, they discussed about their own titles, second they spoke about titles of those publishers, who were not present, and finally wondered that on the occasion they might encounter a new publisher. The organizer’s announcement reassembled the groups in a gathering.

On 16th January, 2022 the Sindh Government (Hyderabad Commissioner and District Jamshoro) issued a notice. It stated that the competent authority has imposed Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code (with specific geographical focus), and with apprehension that some anti-state people would attend the event. However, other stated reason was COVID-19. It might be a valid reason, but the Sindh Government’s own full-scaled public gatherings have shown that spread of the virus was least concern for it. Simply, imposition of Section 144 was a political decision with an intention to disturb the gathering at Sann town. The notice worried me that it would surely discourage participation. If it happens so, then publishers, who have already invested would bear the loss.

I continued aimless scrolling of Facebook pages, and bumped into a post. It read:

روڪ جي روڪي سگهين

(Stop, if you can)

I noticed that within a short time, it became a frequent message. It seemed that the Government’s notice has fired back. It reminded me historian Professor Shahid Amin’s words that ‘oppressor and oppressed interpret the same order differently’. He elaborated that in Chura Churi village incident (India), the police officer’s ‘fire in the air’ was an intended message to the crowd: ‘stop, don’t move forward’. But protestors took it a challenge and their leaders interpreted: ‘don’t stop, move forward’. Likewise, Sindh Government’s notice, imposing ban on gathering in Sann, also fired back and a campaign initiated – ‘let us go to Sann’, ‘Stop, if you can.’ Meanwhile, Syed Zain Shah’s open invitation also acted as a magic wand, and people poured in from various villages and towns of Sindh. On late hours of that day, I checked campaign with the filtered words ‘GM Syed + 17 January 2022 + Sann’ on social media. I was surprised that a total number of traffic bearing these words was more than six digits. This data gave me a confidence that publishers wouldn’t bear the loss.

Professor Mushtaq Mirani, Professor Dr. Badar Soomro, Muban Mangrio and I went to Sann. On the way, we discussed the possible consequence of the Sindh Government’s notification. However, we differed from each other regarding expected size of the gathering. We went to the Sindh United Party’s gathering. We found the hall was full, and none of the chairs were lying vacant. Like, previous year, this year’s event was also well-organized, disciplined and coordinated. Afterwards, we went to Saeen GM Syed’s grave, where we noticed whole graveyard looking like a Book Bazaar.

I found book stalls of some famous publishers – Roshini, Peacock, Kavita, Sindhi Sahat Ghar, Danyal, Elsa, and Fiction House. I also saw some stalls without names, and some were new to me. The case in point was Sindh Students Council’s bookstall. The council’s two books: ‘Chichrial Lash (novel in Sindhi) and translation of Wali Khan’s book ‘Facts Are Facts: The Untold Story of India’s Partition’ sold like a hotcake. The number of stalls was around thirty. An individual purchase at least four books. Roughly, it could be calculated that total sale might be around Rs.1,000,000/-

I also observed that the number of parked cars and vans have outnumbered busses and wagons. I recall that till 1990s, the majority was of buses. These buses always showed banners, mentioning their respective units and locations – Jeay Sindh Mahaz (Dadu), Jeay Sindh Students’ Federation (Govt. Degree College, Larkana) and Sindhi Porhiyat Sangat (Pakistan Steel, Karachi). Another welcoming change was presence of women and young girls. Considerable number of attendees also came with their families. My friend Muban Mangrio enquired one of that attendee, who told us that his whole family – wife, sons, daughters-in-law, daughters, and sons-in-law are there to attend the event. I also met an old man, who was in his late 60s. I enquired from him, ‘what has compelled him to be here?’ He looked at me with a perplexed gaze. Perhaps, ‘he thought that I have asked him an absurd question’, or ‘he assumed that I should know the reason’ or ‘he was pondering, if not here, then where should he be?’

Immediately, he conquered his confusion and with zeal and determination of 1980s, said in one go that his presence is a message to the power: ‘I haven’t surrendered,’ I reject the feudalism’ I denounce orthodox ideas’ and ‘I haven’t left the battle.’ He ended his utterance, and with a same tone enquired from me that whether ‘I have I got the answer of his presence at Saan’. I nodded, ‘yes, I have fully understood it’.

I pondered on some other questions: who are these readers? Why they are buying books. I interviewed some of them. It helped me to prepare their profiles: Most of them were from the lower strata of the middle class; they were educated in government schools, and their medium of instruction was Sindhi. The majority of them were considerably clear on basic political terminology, and political structure of Pakistan. The encouraging aspect of this ‘book- people’ was that all of them were young, and under 25 years. Interestingly, all of them seemed, ‘non-conformist’.

None of them helped me to understand the reasons of their readings. However, I inferred from their indirect conversation that perhaps, the states’ violence and parties’ dying political cultures have pushed them to carve out their own path. No doubt some of them would be ‘book-bosoms’, ‘bookarazzi’, and ‘Tsundoku’. But book reading culture would surely compel the majority to act rationally. However, hawks may consider them merely savant, intellectual or scholar type. Or macho men and adventurists due to their reading habit label them ‘womanish-styled-politicians’. But, it is assured that these young readers are on the right path, and reading would help them to explore un-tested realities in Sindh’s politics.

_____________________

About the Author 

Dr. Zaffar Junejo has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Malaya. He is freelance writer and his areas of interest are post-colonial history, social history and peasants’ history.

The post Saeen GM Syed’s Birth Day – Sindh’s Bibliophile Day first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Oskar Verkaaik

MYSTICISM AND MARXISM COMBINED

Till the mid-1960s, G.M. Syed’s ideas about mysticism and Joyo’s Marxism still seemed incompatible, as Joyo, a self-declared materialist had little patience with mysticism. Despite their close mentor–pupil relationship, the two men did certainly not agree on everything. Joyo was diametrically opposed to the ‘‘Syedism’’ of his G.M. Syed. Like other reformists such as Muhammad Iqbal and Maulana Maududi, he condemned the devotion to spiritual leaders as a form of idol worship (shirk).

On a personal level, however, Joyo always remained loyal to the man who had made his higher education possible. Joyo’s admiration for G.M. Syed was made easier because G.M. Syed himself dismissed uncritical commitment to the spiritual leader as wrong. His reform of mysticism was a radical one, leading to the rejection of the various Sufi brotherhoods. As Joyo told me in an interview, ‘‘G.M. Syed accepted no guides, only books. ’’In his personal conduct, however, he continued to behave like a Syed, wearing white clothes to express his purity and detachment from worldly matters. Till the end of his life, the peasants working on his lands would touch his feet asking for favors. This was unacceptable to Joyo. When in 1966 his house arrest was lifted, however, G.M. Syed turned to Joyo’s group of young Sindhi students in order to return to politics. This turned out to be mutually beneficial. G.M. Syed gave to his new friends his charisma as a Syed, a social reformer, and a political leader. In return he received the revolutionary enthusiasm and street power of the young intellectuals. This was the beginning of a new twist to Sindhi nationalism, which combined both G.M. Syed’s reformed Sufism and Joyo’s interpretation of Marxism, resulting in a powerful and attractive ideology for many young Sindhis.

G.M. Syed encouraged his new friends and ‘‘comrades’’ not to restrict their activities to the university Campus and schools. He sent them to the many shrines of local holy men in the rural areas, especially on the annual Urs celebration, when the holy man’s release from this world is celebrated in colorful festivals that attract many pilgrims. These events were important for several reasons. New intellectuals went back to the rural areas from which they originated, bringing with them a new way of looking at these places of pilgrimage. In the interpretation of G.M. Syed and his group, the holy men were martyrs for the cause of mysticism, Sindh, and the liberation of the peasant. Jam Saqi, the student leader, for instance, wrote a book on one of these local holy men, the eighteenth century Shah Inayat of Jhok, calling him somewhat anachronistically a ‘‘socialist Sufi’’. In Saqi’s reading, Shah Inayat had been the leader of a commune of liberated peasants, for which he was beheaded. This reinterpretation of holy men as social reformers was a potential threat to many local landlords, Pirs, and Syeds, who often claimed to be the descendent (sajjada nishin) of holy men, who had inherited part of their miraculous powers (barakat).

In Sindh, as elsewhere in South Asia, traditional Sufism consists of various brotherhoods of holy men (Pir), their descendent (sajjada nishin), and their followers (murid). As the sajjada nishin are often landlords, traditional Sufism is related to patron–client relations. By way of speeches, songs, and discussions with fellow-pilgrims, however, G.M. Syed and his group criticized this hierarchical structure of spiritual authority based on inherited charisma. They condemned the patron–client relations that were ritually confirmed and reproduced during the traditional Urs. Instead, they tried to turn the local holy men into historical heroes of Sindh and prophets of mysticism, with whom the disciples could get in touch through the traditional practices of music and dance. In these mystical encounters they would be able to find the spirit to free themselves from their oppressors, that is, the landlord families, most of whom supported the military government.

Although these activities probably did spread some awareness among pilgrims and peasants about the causes of social inequality, the main effect of these activities was a deeper engagement with mysticism and Sindhi separatism among the Sindhi students and intellectuals themselves. The trips to the rural shrines became important rituals for the Sindhi left.

Identifying with the rural fakir and other mystical figures who are so absorbed in the love for God that they are indifferent to pain and fear, they derived from these trips a romantic sense of passion and belonging, which was apparently more compelling than Ibrahim Joyo’s belief in the inevitability of progress.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, also a Sindhi, recognized the potential of this reformed Sufism when he founded the Pakistan People’s Party to contest the elections of 1970. He, too, went to the rural shrines, sat down to talk to the peasants and pilgrims, and called himself a fakir. However, whereas G.M. Syed called for the independence of Sindh, Bhutto’s ambition was to rule Pakistan, and when he did, he turned some of the shrines in Sindh into places of national, rather than provincial, importance. Attracted by Bhutto’s rhetoric of socialism and mysticism, some of the Sindhi leftwing intellectuals joined Bhutto, but most of them were soon disappointed and returned to the Sindhi separatist movement of G.M. Syed. In 1973, the latter founded the Jeay Sindh Movement, which, two years after the foundation of Bangladesh, called for an independent Sindhudesh. From then on, G.M. Syed spent most of his life under house arrest. This seriously damaged the Sindhi movement. However, the notion of Sindh’s unique identity rooted in a history of mysticism was spread widely. Today, it is commonly understood in Pakistan that Sindh is a place of religious tolerance and mysticism.

A brief note, then, on the question why Bhutto could successfully use the reformation of Sufism for his own project, while the separatist movement of G.M. Syed failed. Due to the Anglo-Saxon system of democracy, in which people vote in districts according to the Winnertakes-all principle, people in Pakistan tend to vote for local power brokers rather than along ideological lines. In this way, landlord families have become the most powerful political class in Sindh. The Pakistan People’s Party, in particular, relied for many years on the brokerage of local landlords within their districts. It is mainly for this reason that Sindh’s new intellectuals and radical politicians have not been able to become an important political factor, even though many people in Sindh were sympathetic to their dual agenda of social reform and the revival of mysticism. Till recently, it was not uncommon for Sindhis to have a portrait of G.M. Syed in their house, often alongside a portrait of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or his daughter, Benazir. The former was widely admired as a true Syed. When it came to voting, however, most people opted for his rivals, the Bhutto family of the Pakistan People’s Party. After one of the many elections he lost, G.M. Syed remarked about the people of Sindh:

‘‘They sing and dance for me, but they don’t vote for me.’’

The lack of electoral success may have been the reason why the Sindhi separatist movement disintegrated into various smaller parties from the 1970s onwards. Nonetheless, the Pakistan People’s Party adopted the discourse of peasant liberation and mysticism, for which G.M. Syed and Ibrahim Joyo were largely responsible. In the hands of the Pakistan People’s Party, however, this discourse, once meant to bring to power an up-and-coming class of new intellectuals within an independent Sindhudesh, served to confirm the political power of landlord families within Pakistan.

CONCLUSION

The new intellectuals I have described called themselves secularists because of their rejection of Muslim nationalism. Following G.M. Syed’s distinction between religion and mysticism, they rejected the political relevance of religion, that is, religious doctrine and ritual, as well as the authority of the Ulama, the Mullahs, and the Pirs and Syeds. I have, nonetheless, called their ideology a specific form of Islamic reform or revival. Whereas some Islamic reformers revived the tradition of Ijtehad or the individual interpretation of Islamic sources, and others returned to the sovereignty of the Shariat or Islamic law, the Sindhi movement built upon the Sufi notion of Wahdat ul-wajud or the oneness of being. Like the other variations of Islamic reform, the claim was to return to the original meaning of the concept, to rationalize it, and to purify it from the corruption of later innovations (bidat). In practice this meant an attack on the hierarchy of religious authority. Whereas other forms of Islamic reform undermined the authority of the Ulama and the mullahs, the Sindhi form criticized the Sufi brotherhoods and their leaders, that is, the Pirs and Syeds who claimed to be the descendent of the founder of the brotherhood. In Sindh, the Pirs and Syeds used to be the most powerful religious specialists, more important than the Ulama.

In this article I have focused on the network of new intellectuals responsible for this peculiar form of Islamic reform. For want of space I have not analyzed the wider debates on Islam, nationalism, and ethnicity as they have evolved after independence in the process of nation and state building. Like most other Islamic reformists, the students, teachers, lawyers, journalists, poets, and social workers who joined the Sindhi movement received their education in secular educational institutions.

Most of them were among the first of their social milieu to be trained in these institutions. Their secular education took them out of their environment and into the city – the Sindh madrassah in Karachi and, after independence, the University of Hyderabad. Moreover, they did not only benefit from new education opportunities, they also actively promoted secular education as a means to reform society. Apart from politicians and intellectuals, they also were, and self-consciously wanted to be, teachers, founders of schools and boarding houses, and educational reformers.

Secular education enabled them to look at the villages from which they came in a new way. It also gave them the tools to develop their own kind of Islamic reform. Of particular importance was the reformation of the Urs celebration at local shrines. For the new-leftist intellectuals, the Urs no longer was an occasion in which the authority of the landlord qua Pir or Syed was confirmed. For them, it rather became an event to commemorate the martyrs of Sindh and its peasants.

Although critical of the state and the state ideology of Muslim nationalism, the Sindhi intellectuals were influenced by other forms of Islamic reform as well as the discourse that links the nation to the religious community. In their own unique ways, they were searching for the essence of Islam, finding it in mysticism, and defining the distinct character of the Sindhi nation on the basis of this mystical essence of Islam. They were, in Gramsci’s term, on the defensive, that is, responding to a dominant discourse of religious nationalism, appropriating it to argue for the uniqueness of the Sindhi people within Pakistan. They did so in opposition to an authoritarian regime, initially a military government, followed by a democratically elected regime that was, however, hardly less oppressive than the military rule that preceded it – witness G.M. Syed spending years under house arrest.

However, state oppression was not the main factor that rendered the Sindhi movement powerless. Paradoxically, the movement suffered more from the gradual incorporation of its ideas into official nationalism. In the 1970s, the Pakistan People’s Party under the leadership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto managed to cut the grass from under the feet of G.M. Syed and his followers by reconciling the latter’s ideas on ethnicity and mysticism with the notion of religious nationalism. This perhaps shows how close G.M. Syed and Ibrahim Joyo remained to the dominant discourse of Muslim nationalism and Islamic reform, despite their efforts to show that Pakistan was a mistake and despite the uniqueness of their interpretation of Islamic reform. In their opposition to state discourse they remained inextricably connected to it. (Concludes)

_____________________

Oskar Verkaaik is Assistant Professor at the Research Center for Religion and Society, University of Amsterdam, and head of the branch office of the International Institute for Asian Studies. He is the author of A People of Migrants and a popular book in Dutch based on his experiences in Pakistan.

Courtesy: The International Institute of Social History, one of the largest archives of labor and social history in the world. Located in Amsterdam

Click here for Part-I, Part-II, Part-III,  Part-IV 

The post Reforming Mysticism: Sindhi Separatist Intellectuals in Pakistan – Part-V first appeared on Sindh Courier.