مہاتما گاندھی کے پرسنل سکریٹری وی کلیانم کی زبانی: ’گاندھی جی کا آ خری دن‘

 V. Kalyanam

دستاویز : ایسا عام طور پر کہا جا تا ہے کہ گاندھی جی جب آ خری سانس لے رہے تھے تو انہوں نے ’’ہے رام‘‘ پکارا۔مگر سچ یہ ہے کہ جب گاندھی جی کو گولی لگی، تب ان کی زبان سے ایک لفظ کا ادا ہونا بھی ممکن نہیں تھا۔یہ فرضی بات کسی منچلے رپورٹر نے لکھ دی اور دیکھتے دیکھتے پوری دنیا نے اس کو سچ مان لیا۔

فوٹو: پی ٹی آئی

وی کلیانم مہاتما گاندھی کے پرسنل سکریٹری تھے۔ان کا یہ مضمون ایم کے گاندھی ڈاٹ او آرجی  پر انگریزی میں پڑھا جاسکتاہے۔ گاندھی جی کی شہادت کے عینی شاہد کے قلم سے لکھا یہ مضمون ایک دستاویز کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے۔یہ تحریر اور بھی کئی معنوں میں اہم ہے۔لہذا آپ کی خدمت میں اس کا ترجمہ ایم کے گاندھی ڈاٹ او آر جی کے شکریے ساتھ پیش کیا جارہا ہے۔سید کاشف

9ستمبر 1947 کو مہاتما گاندھی کلکتہ سے دلی واپس آ ئے تھے۔گاندھی جی تیس جنوری مارگ پر واقع برلا ہاؤس میں قیام پذیر تھے۔حویلی کی نچلی منزل پر ایک بڑا کمرہ تھا ، جس میں قالین بچھی ہوی تھی۔کمرے سے ایک ٹوائلٹ بھی منسلک تھا۔یہیں ملا قاتی بیٹھتے تھے۔کمرے کے ایک کونے میں روئی کا ایک موٹاگدا بچھا ہوا تھا۔ ٹیک لگانے کے لئے، گدے پر ایک بڑا تکیہ رکھا ہوا تھا۔آگے کی جانب ایک ڈیسک بھی موجود تھا۔ کمرے کے دوسرے حصے میں ایک میز اور ایک کرسی لگی تھی۔ میز پر خطوط کا ڈھیر لگا رہتا تھا۔گاندھی جی عام طور پر پورا دن یہیں گزارتے تھے۔ خطوط کا جواب لکھتے، لوگوں سے ملتے، چرخے پر سوت کاتتے ، اور قیلولہ کرتے۔

 30 جنوری1948 (جمعہ) کی شروعات ایک عام دن کی طرح ہوئی تھی۔ اس جمعہ کی شام اتنی اندوہناک ہوگی، ہم نے سوچا بھی نہیں تھا۔ معمول کے مطابق ہم صبح کے ساڑھے تین بجے پوجا کے لئے اٹھ گئے۔جب ہم روز مرہ کے کام نپٹا رہے تھے، تب ہما رے خواب و خیال میں بھی نہیں تھا کہ اس دن کی شام، شام گریہ ہونے والی ہے۔گاندھی جی نے اپنی پوتی آبھا کو نیند سے بیدار کرنے کے لئے آ واز لگائی۔

ضروریات سے فارغ ہوکر گاندھی جی ٹوائلٹ سے باہر آ ئے اور گدے پر براجمان ہو گئے۔ہم بھی ان کے سامنے با ادب بیٹھ گئے۔ گاندھی جی کا دن ہمیشہ پوجا سے شروع ہو تا تھا۔ان کی پوجا میں سبھی مذاہب کی مقدس کتابوں سے تلاوت کا اہتمام کیا جاتا تھا۔ خاص طور پر ہندوازم اور اسلام۔اس عمل کے پیچھے ان کی منشا یہی تھی کہ تمام مذاہب کے مابین اتحاد قائم رہے۔

گاندھی جی نے اپنی آ نکھیں بند کر لیں۔ ان کا میڈیٹیشن شروع ہو چکا تھا۔ آبھا ابھی تک سو رہی تھی۔ انہوں نے یہ دیکھ لیا تھا کہ وہ پوجا میں غیر حاضر تھی۔آ بھا نہیں آ ئی اور پوجا مکمل ہو گئی۔ پوجا ختم ہوتے ہی، منو کچن میں گئی اور گاندھی جی کے لئے صبح کا مشروب (ایک گلاس گرم پانی میں ایک چمچ شہد اورایک چمچ لیموکا رس)لے آ ئی۔ جب وہ گاندھی جی کو گلاس تھما رہی تھی، تو گاندھی جی گجراتی میں کہنے لگے؛ایسا معلوم پڑتا ہے وہ لوگ جو ہمارے قریب رہتے ہیں، ان کے بیچ بھی میر ا اثر گھٹتا جا رہا ہے۔پوجا آپ کی روح کو پاکیزگی بخشتا ہے۔مجھے دکھ ہے کہ آبھا پوجا میں شامل نہیں ہوئی۔ تم جانتی ہو ، میرے نزدیک پوجا کتنی اہمیت رکھتا ہے۔اگر تم میں ہمت ہے، تو تم میری ناراضگی کی خبر اس تک پہنچا دینا۔ اگر وہ پوجا میں شامل نہیں ہونا چاہتی ہے، تووہ یہاں سے جا سکتی ہے۔یہ اس کے لئے بھی اچھا ہوگا، اور ہمارے لئے بھی۔

 اسی دوران آ بھا جگ گئی اور اپنا کام کرنے لگی۔ گاندھی جی نے اسے خود سے نہیں ٹوکا۔وہ ایسا کیوں نہیں کرتے، یہ ہم سب جانتے تھے۔ میں ان کے قریب بیٹھا رہا ۔ میں انتظار کر رہا تھا کہ وہ مجھے اس دن کی ذمہ داریاں سونپیں گے۔گاندھی جی چاہ رہے تھے کہ میں ان کے سیوا گرام کے دس روزہ دورے کے متعلق انتظامات کروں۔ انڈین نیشنل گانگریس کی نئی آ ئین کی ٹائپ شدہ پہلی ڈرافٹ میرے ہاتھ میں تھی، جوگاندھی جی نے گزشتہ روز مجھے ڈکٹیٹ کی تھی۔ میں نے ڈرافٹ انہیں تھما دیا۔ وہ چاہ رہے تھے کہ گانگریس کو تحلیل کرکے اسے نئے سرے سے قائم کیا جائے۔ گاندھی جی کو اس وقت ڈرافٹ پڑھنے کی خواہش نہیں ہو رہی تھی۔انہوں نے میرے سینئر پیارے لال جی کو بلا یا اور انہیں یہ ہدایت دی کہ وہ اسے باریکی سے پڑھیں اورجہاں ضرورت محسوس ہو، تصحیح کریں، اور اپنی رائے دیں۔

 ان دنوں دہلی کی حالت بہت خراب تھی۔ پاکستان سے بڑی تعداد میں ہندو مہاجرین کے آ جانے سے جگہ جگہ فرقہ وارانہ فسادات ہو رہے تھے۔پاکستا ن میں مسلمانوں کے ذریعے کئے گئے برےسلوک کے سبب، ہندو یہ چاہ رہے تھے کہ دہلی کے مسلمانوں سے اس کا بدلہ لیا جائے۔ مسلمانوں اور ہندوؤں کا وفد ہر روز گاندھی جی سے ملنے آ تا تھا۔وہ یہ بات چیت کرتے تھے کہ کیسے مسئلہ کا حل نکا لا جائے اور دلی میں حالات کو معمول پر لایا جائے۔

سردی کے ان ایام میں گاندھی جی دھوپ میں بیٹھنا پسند کرتے تھے۔ وہ لان میں لگی چارپائی پر بیٹھے رہتے۔ان کا ہر دن مصروف دن ہوا کرتا تھا۔ وہ شاید ہی کبھی بیکار بیٹھتے تھے۔ جب کوئی میٹنگ نہیں ہوتی، تو وہ گجراتی، ہندی یا پھر انگریزی میں خط یا مضمون لکھا کرتے ۔گرچہ وزراء اور دیگر معزز افسران پہلے سے طے شدہ پروگرام کے مطابق، گاندھی جی سے ملنے آ تے تھے، مگر پنڈت نہر وکا یہ معمول تھا کہ کہ اگر وہ شہر میں ہیں تو ہر روز آ فس جاتے ہوے صبح قریب نو بجے ضرور آ تے اور گاندھی جی سے ملاقات کرتے۔

اس دن وہ خاص لوگ جو گاندھی جی سے ملنے آئے، ان میں محترمہ آ رکے نہرو بھی تھیں۔ وہ صبح 6 بجے آ ئیں تھیں۔ انہیں دو پہر میں امریکہ کے لئے روانہ ہونا تھا۔ان کی درخواست پر گاندھی جی نے انہیں اپنی ایک دستخط شدہ فوٹو بھی دی، جس پر انہوں نے ایک پیغام بھی تحریر کیا؛ ایک غریب ملک کی نمائندہ کے طور پر ، آپ کو وہاں سادہ اور کفایت شعار زندگی گزارنی چاہئے۔’ دو بجے، مارگریٹ بورک وہائٹ (مشہور فوٹو گرافر، لائف میگزین) نے گاندھی جی کا انٹر ویو لیا۔اپنی بات چیت کے دوران انہوں نے گاندھی جی سے پوچھا؛’آپ نے ہمیشہ کہا ہے کہ آپ 125 سال تک زندہ رہنا چاہتے ہیں۔ آ پ کو یہ امید کہاں سے آ تی ہے؟’ گاندھی جی نے انہیں جب جواب دیا تو وہ حیرت میں پڑ گئیں۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ اب وہ ایسی کوئی خواہش نہیں رکھتے۔ جب یہ سوال کیا گیا کہ اب کیا ہو گیا تو انہوں نے کہا؛’دنیا میں رو نما ہونے والے ہولناک واقعات؛ میں اب اس اندھیرے میں نہیں جینا چاہتا۔’

برلا ہاؤس میں گاندھی جی کا زیادہ وقت خطوط لکھنے، لوگوں سے ملنے، یا پوجا کرنے میں گزرتا تھا۔ مارگریٹ بورک وہائٹ کے جانے کے فورا ًبعد، پروفیسر این۔ آ ر۔ ملکھانی (ڈ پٹی ہائی کمشنر آ ف پاکستان) او ر دو دیگر معزز حضرات تشریف لائے۔ انہوں نے سندھ کے ہندوؤں کی بری حالت کا ذکر کیا۔ ان کو تحمل کے ساتھ سننے کے بعد گاندھی جی نے جواب دیا؛’یہ سب نہیں ہوا ہوتا، اگر لوگوں نے میری بات سنی ہوتی۔ میں جو بولتا ہوں، لوگ اسے آئی گئی کر دیتے ہیں۔مگر جو سچ ہے وہ میں کہتا جاؤں گا۔’

---

---

 بی بی سی کے باب اسٹمسن گاندھی جی کو پوجا کے بعد ملنے والے تھے۔ انہوں نے پہلے ہی گاندھی جی کو چند سوالات لکھ بھیجے تھے۔ وہ تشریف لاچکے تھے اور لان میں انتظار کر رہے تھے، جہاں گاندھی جی پوجا کرنے والے تھے۔ وزیر اعلیٰ یواین ڈھیبر، رسیکل پاریکھ (کاٹھیاوار سے) اور مشہور رائٹر ونسنٹ شیان(جنہوں نے آخری دنوں میں گاندھی جی کے کئی انٹرویوز لئے تھے) بھی آ گئے تھے۔ان لوگوں نے پہلے سے کوئی اپوائنمنٹ نہیں لی تھی۔وہ بس اس امید سے آ گئے تھے کہ گاندھی جی سے ملاقات ہو جائے گی۔مگر، ان سب کو مایوسی ہاتھ لگی۔

برلا ہاؤس کا اپنا واچ مین ہوا کرتا تھا۔قرآن کی تلاوت کے حوالے سے کچھ لوگوں نے گاندھی جی کی گزشتہ سال کی پبلک میٹنگز میں اپنا اعتراض جتایا تھا۔ اسی بات کا خیال کرتے ہوے، سردار پٹیل (بطور وزیر داخلہ) نے ایک حکم جاری کیا، جس کے تحت احتیاط کے لئے ایک ہیڈ کانسٹبل اور چار کانسٹبلز برلا ہاؤس میں تعینات کئے گئے۔

20 جنوری کو پوجا کے دوران ایک بم پھٹا تھا۔بم مدن لال( جو ایک پنجابی مہاجر تھا) نے پھینکا تھا۔ حالانکہ اس کا نشانہ چوک گیا اور گاندھی جی بچ گئے ، مگرایک دیوار دھماکہ کی زد میں آکر منہدم ہو گئی تھی۔ اور کچھ نہیں ہوا۔ گاندھی جی کو کبھی یہ گمان بھی نہیں ہوا کہ کوئی انہیں مارنے آ یا تھا۔ در اصل گاندھی جی نے ہندوستانی حکومت کے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپواس رکھا تھا، جس کے تحت بھارت نے پاکستان کے 50 کروڑ روپے روک لیے تھے۔ اس فیصلہ کی بنیا د یہ بنائی گئی تھی کہ پاکستان نے کشمیر پر حملہ کرنے اور اسے ہتھیانے کے لئے آ فریدی قبائلی لوگوں سے سازش رچی ۔ گاندھی جی کی زندگی کی خاطر ہندوستانی سرکار جھک گئی تھی۔ پاکستان کا پیسہ بھی ادا کر دیا گیا تھا۔ گاندھی جی کے اس عمل سے کٹر ہندو ناراض ہو گئے تھے۔انہیں ایسا لگا تھا کہ گاندھی جی مسلمانوں کو خوش کرنے کے لئے یہ سب کر رہے تھے، اور ان سب سے ہندوؤں کا نقصان ہو رہا تھا۔ مندرجہ بالا بم کا واقعہ اسی کا نتیجہ تھا۔

لہذا برلا ہاؤس میں پولیس سیکورٹی بڑھا دی گئی۔ انہیں یہ ہدایت دی گئی تھی کہ وہ ہراس شخص کو گیٹ پرر و کیں گے جو انہیں مشکوک لگتے ہیں۔ لیکن، پولیس نے یہ مشورہ دیا کہ صرف مشکوک نہیں، انہیں ہر شخص کو چیک کرنے کی اجازت دی جائے۔ جب ایس پی صاحب نے مجھ سے اس حوالے سے رابطہ کیا، تو میں نے گاندھی جی سے اس بابت بات کی۔ لیکن وہ اس بات کے لئے راضی نہیں ہوئے۔ میں نے ایس پی کو گاندھی جی کی رائے سے مطلع کر دیا۔ جب یہ بات اعلیٰ افسران کو معلوم ہوئی توڈی آئی جی صاحب خو د تشریف لے آ ئے ۔ انہوں نے گاندھی جی سے بات کرنے کی اجازت چاہی۔ میں انہیں اندر لے گیا۔ ڈی آ ئی جی نے گاندھی جی کو بتلا یا کہ ان کی جان کو خطرہ ہے، لہذا انہیں یہ اجازت دی جائے وہ اندر آ نے والے ہر شخص کی تلاشی لیں۔انہوں نے کہا کہ اگر کچھ انہونی ہوتی ہے، تو ایسی صورت میں پولیس پر ساری ذمہ داری عائد ہو جائے گی۔

گاندھی جی نے ڈی آ ئی جی کو صاف صاف کہہ دیا کہ ان کی زندگی بھگوان کے ہاتھ میں ہے۔اگر انہیں مرنا ہوگا، وہ مر جائیں گے۔انہیں کوئی نہیں بچا سکتا۔’’وہ لوگ جو آ زادی کی بجائے حفاظت کوترجیح دیتے ہیں، انہیں جینے کا کوئی حق نہیں ہے۔‘‘ وہ شاید اس بات کے لئے راضی ہو جاتے کہ عام پوجا کو بند کر دیا جائے، مگر لوگوں کی تلاشی کے لئے تیار نہیں ہوتے۔ لہذا، پولیس کو یہ ہدایت دی گئی کہ وہ سادہ لباس میں رہیں اور مشکوک لوگوں پر نظر رکھیں۔ انہیں یہ بھی ہدایت دی گئی کہ جب گاندھی جی پوجا کے لئے جائیں اور جب وہ وہاں سے واپس آئیں، اس دوران یہ یقینی بنا یا جائے کہ ان پر کوئی حملہ نہ کرے۔ دو بجے ، آ بھا اور منو، گاندھی جی سے اجازت لیکر، کچھ دوستوں سے ملنے گئیں تھیں۔انہوں نے یہ وعدہ کیا تھا کہ وہ شام کی پوجا میں شامل ہونگی۔

اس طرح گاندھی جی کو شام کا کھانا پروسنے کا ذمہ مجھ پر آ ن پڑا۔ گرچہ سرکار کو کام کرتے ہوے صرف پانچ مہینے ہوے تھے، میڈیا میں نہرو اور پٹیل کے بیچ کے مبینہ اختلافات کاشور تھا۔ گاندھی جی اس افواہ سے بہت پریشان تھے۔ وہ اس افواہ کی تردید کرنا چاہتے تھے۔ وہ یہاں تک بھی سوچ رہوے تھے کہ سردار پٹیل کو کہیں گے کہ وہ استعفیٰ دے دیں تاکہ نہرو ملک کی باگ ڈور آ زادانہ طور پر سنبھال سکیں۔ لیکن ایسا ہوا نہیں۔ انہوں نے پٹیل کو گفتگو کے لئے 4 بجے بلا یا تھا۔ وہ ان سے اس موضوع پر پوجا کے بعد بات کرنے والے تھے۔ لیکن خدا کو یہ منظور نہیں تھا۔ پٹیل اپنی بیٹی منی بین کے ہمراہ وقت پر آ گئے تھے۔ گاندھی جی اس وقت شام کا کھانا کھا رہے تھے۔ جب وہ لوگ بات کر رہے تھے،تبھی آ بھا اور منو بھی واپس آ گئے تھے۔

پوجا 5بجے شر وع ہونی تھی۔پانچ بج گئے مگر پٹیل اور گاندھی جی کی گفتگو چلتی رہی۔ گفتگو کی اہمیت اور انکی سنجیدگی کو بھانپتے ہوے ،کسی نے ٹوکنا مناسب نہیں سمجھا۔لڑکیوں نے سردار پٹیل کی بیٹی کو اشارہ کیا، تب گفتگو ختم ہوئی۔ گاندھی جی ٹوائلٹ گئے۔ اور پھر اس کے بعد سیدھے پوجا گراؤنڈ کی طرف بڑھنے لگے، جو تیس سے چالیس گز دور تھا۔ چار پانچ زینوں کے بعد، بڑا سا لان تھا۔ گاندھی جی پندرہ منٹ لیٹ ہو گئے تھے۔ تقریبا ًد و سو پچاس لوگ گاندھی جی کا بے صبری سے انتظار کر رہے تھے۔ جیسے ہی وہ آئے، سب ایک ساتھ بول پڑے: گاندھی جی آ گئے۔ پھرسب کی نگاہیں گاندھی جی کی جانب ٹک گئیں۔معمول کے مطابق گاندھی جی اپنی دونوں پوتیوں کے کندھوں کے سہارے ہلکے ہلکے قدموں سے آ گے بڑھ رہے تھے۔ ان کا سر جھکا ہوا تھا۔نگاہیں زمین پر ٹکی تھیں۔ میں ان کے ٹھیک بائیں طرف ان کے پیچھے پیچھے چل رہا تھا۔

میں نے سنا گاندھی جی لڑکیوں کو ڈانٹ پلا رہے تھے۔’’میں دیر ہو گیا، مجھے یہ با الکل بھی پسند نہیں ہے۔‘‘ جب منو نے گاندھی جی سے کہا کہ چونکہ انکی گفتگو کسی اہم موضوع پر ہورہی تھی، لہذا ان لوگوں نے بیچ میں ٹوکنا مناسب نہیں سمجھا ، توگاندھی جی نے فور ا جواب دیا؛’’ایک نرس کی یہ ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ مریض کو وقت پر دوا دے۔ دیر ہونے کی وجہ سے مریض کی موت بھی واقع ہو سکتی ہے۔‘‘

ہم پرارتھنا کے لئے مخصوص چبوترے کو لگی سیڑھیاں چڑھ رہے تھے۔لوگ ہاتھ باندھے ہوے گاندھی جی کے استقبال میں کھڑے تھے۔ گاندھی جی نے سبھی کا خیر مقدم کیا۔ لوگ گاندھی جی کے لئے راستہ بنا رہے تھے۔ اسٹیج سیڑھیوں سے قریب 25 فٹ اوپر تھا۔اسٹیج پر ایک فٹ اونچی لکڑی کی ڈائس تھی،گاندھی جی اسی پر بیٹھتے تھے۔قاتل (ناتھو رام گوڈسے) ظاہر ہے اسی بھیڑ میں گاندھی جی کا انتظار کر رہا تھا۔وہ اپنی جیب میں ریوالور چھپائے ہوئے تھا۔گاندھی جی نے بہ مشکل پانچ چھ قدم بڑھا ئے ہونگے کہ قاتل نے با لکل قریب سے لگاتار کئی گولیاں فائر کر ڈالیں۔ گاندھی جی وہیں ڈھیر ہو گئے اور لمحوں میں رخصت ہو گئے۔خون دھاڑے مار رہا تھا۔اسی ہماہمی میں ان کا چشمہ پارہ پارہ ہو گیا تھا۔جوتے کہیں کے کہیں پڑے تھے۔میرے حواس باختہ ہو گئے تھے۔تھوڑی دیر کے لئے میں اپنا سدھ بدھ کھو بیٹھا تھا۔ بعد میں، جب میں تنہا تھا،میں نے دیکھا میری آنکھیں بھر آ ئیں تھیں۔

چند ہی وقفے میں خبر دور دور تک پھیل گئی ۔منٹوں میں لوگوں کا ہجوم برلا ہوؤ س کے با ہر امنڈ پڑا تھا۔ مجبو راً گیٹ بند کر دیا گیا تا کہ لوگ کیمپس کے اندر نہ آ سکیں۔پٹیل تو پہلے ہی جا چکے تھے۔ میں اپنے کمرے میں بھا گا، اور ٹیلیفون کے ذریعے نہرو کے آفس کو یہ اطلاع دے دی۔ ان دنوں ہم کسی بھی وزیر کے گھربغیر کسی روک ٹوک کے داخل ہو سکتے تھے۔ میں کسی طرح بھیڑ کو چیرتے ہوے باہر نکلا اور کار میں بیٹھ کر سیدھا پٹیل کے گھر کے لئے روانہ ہو گیا، تاکہ ان کو اس ناگہانی کی خبر دے سکوں۔ان کا گھر بمشکل پانچ منٹ کی دوری پر تھا۔

اسی دوران، گاندھی جی کے مردہ جسم کو اٹھا کر انکے کمرے میں رکھا گیا۔ایک چٹائی پر انہیں لٹا دیا گیا تھا۔ لوگ انکے ارد گرد کھڑے تھے۔ ایسا لگ رہا تھا ، گاندھی جی سو رہے ہیں۔ان کا جسم کافی دیر تک گرم رہا۔وہ رات کتنی اندوہناک تھی، بیان کرنا مشکل ہے۔ صرف چند لوگ نہیں، بلکہ دنیا بھر کے لا کھوں لوگوں پر غم کا پہاڑ ٹوٹ پڑا تھا۔ان سب کے لئے، جن کی خاطر گاندھی جی نے اپنی زندگی وقف کر دی تھی۔ اور جن کی خاطر وہ مر گئے تھے۔
جیسے ہی گاندھی جی کی نعش کو انکے کمرے میں لے جا یا گیا، باہر بھگدڑ مچ گئی۔ ہر کوئی اس کوشش میں تھا کہ اسے گاندھی جی سے وابستہ کوئی نہ کوئی چیز ہاتھ لگ جائے، تاکہ وہ اسے گاندھی جی کی نشانی کے طور پر سنجو کر رکھ سکے۔ کچھ لوگ تو زمین کے اس حصے سے مٹھی بھر مٹی ہی اکٹھا کرنے لگے، جہاں گاندھی جی قاتل کی گولی کھاکر گر پڑے تھے۔نتیجتاً اس جگہ پر ایک بڑا گڈھا بن گیا۔خیر، پھر اس جگہ کوگھیر لیا گیا۔ایک گارڈ بھی وہاں تعینات کیا گیا۔

پرارتھنا سبھا میں ہوئے بم بلاسٹ کے پہلے اور پھر اس کے بعد، گاندھی جی کی حفاظت کے سلسلے میں سرکار کے ذریعے اٹھا ئے گئے اقدام کا ذکر کرتے ہوے وزیر داخلہ سردار پٹیل نے یہ بیان کیا کہ؛’’میں نے خود باپو سے یہ درخواست کی تھی کہ وہ پولیس کو اپنی ڈیوٹی کرنے دیں تاکہ وہ ان کی حفاظت کر سکیں۔ مگر وہ راضی نہیں ہوئے۔یہ میرے لئے ، ملک کے لئے اور پوری دنیا کے لئے ناقابل تلا فی نقصان ہے۔مجھے اور پولیس کو جس بات کا اندیشہ تھا وہ سچ ثابت ہو گیا۔ قاتل ہماری کمزوری کا فائدہ اٹھا نے میں کامیاب رہا۔اور گاندھی جی کے وہ معنی خیز جملے کہ اگر ان کی موت لکھی ہوگی تو وہ واقع ہو کر رہے گی، چہ جائے کہ کتنے بھی حفاظتی انتظام کیوں نہ کر لیے جائیں، باالاخر صحیح ثابت ہو گئے۔‘‘

ایسا عام طور پر کہا جا تا ہے کہ گاندھی جی جب آ خری سانس لے رہے تھے تو انہوں نے ’’ہے رام‘‘ پکارا۔مگر سچ یہ ہے کہ جب گاندھی جی کو گولی لگی، تب ان کی زبان سے ایک لفظ کا ادا ہونا بھی ممکن نہیں تھا۔ ہاں البتہ یہ بات صحیح ہے کہ گاندھی جی اکثر کہا کرتے تھے کہ ان کی یہ خواہش ہے کہ جب ان کی روح نکل رہی ہو، تب ان کی زبان پر رام کا نام ہو۔یہ فرضی بات کسی منچلے رپورٹر نے لکھ دی اور دیکھتے دیکھتے پوری دنیا نے اسے سچ مان لیا۔حیرت کی بات ہے کہ کبھی کسی نے اس کی تصدیق کرنے کی کوشش بھی نہیں کی۔

ایک سراسر جھوٹ کو سچ بنا کر دنیا کے سامنے پیش کر دیا گیا۔ اگر وہ بیمار ہوتے، یا بستر مرگ پر ہوتے ، تو وہ ضرور رام کا نام لیتے۔لیکن حقیقت یہ ہے کہ انہیں رام کا نام لینے تک کا موقع نہیں دیا گیا۔گاندھی جی اپنی زندگی کے آخری دنوں میں، پرارتھنا سبھا کے بعدکے بھاشن میں، کئی بار اس بات کا اظہار کر چکے تھے کہ وہ چاہتے ہیں کہ بھگوان انہیں اپنے گھر بلا لے۔ وہ نہیں چاہتے کہ وہ زندہ رہیں اورملک  میں ہو رہے مظالم کے خاموش گواہ بنیں۔ شا ید بھگوان نے ان کی منتیں سن لی۔ ان کی موت اس معنی میں عظیم تھی کہ ان کی روح تب پرواز ہوئی جب وہ خدا کی طرف رجوع ہونے جا رہے تھے۔جب ان کی روح نکلی، انہیں کوئی تکلیف نہیں ہوئی۔انہیں ایک لمحے کے لئے بھی کسی تکلیف کا احساس نہیں ہوا۔

(سید کاشف پنجاب اینڈ ہریانہ ہائی کورٹ میں مترجم  ہیں۔)

http://thewireurdu.com/51452/v-kalyanam-personal-secretary-mahatma-gandhi-the-last-day-of-mahatma-gandhi/

Fortieth Anniversary of Iranian Revolution: How Iran became Islamic Republic

                                                                                         Syed Kashif

This February marks 40^th anniversary of Iranian Revolution. 1979 Iranian Revolution—having overthrown the last king of Pahlavi dynasty Mohammed Reza Shah Pehlavi—had led to religious establishment. Iran became ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’. A lot is being talked about how ‘Islamic Republic’ has survived and lived a long period of forty years. There is no doubt that post-revolutionary Iran has seen many turbulent days. People of Iran have come on the street several times and expressed their anguish. However, they have not often been categorical in their demand and questioned the legitimacy of the religious establishment. On the other hand, every time, Islamic Republic has stood muscular. What is the reason behind this? The answer lies in the ideology of Islamic Republic of Iran. It has been devised so formidably and derived so prudently (from Shiite Islam) that to question the same one needs to put himself on risk in terms of politics as well as religion. Therefore, let us take this opportunity to understand the nucleus of this ideology and discuss as to how exactly Iran turned into an ‘Islamic Republic’.

The success of Iranian Revolution is largely endowed to the failure of Shah. In mid 1970s there were immense international as well as domestic pressure on the Shah to relax police controls and human rights violations, bring in reform and social justice, allow freedom of expression and individual liberty. 1979 Revolution was, therefore, the greatest movement of Iran for freedom, individual liberty, protection of human rights, accountable and constitutional government, freedom of press and so on.

It was Cold War period when the revolution took place. At that time Iran was a close partner of USA. Although Iran was never formally colonized, it always remained under the influence of colonizers. Iran’s Shah was nothing but the police of West or USA in the region.

The regime had suppressed all sections of society. Apart from censors on freedom and human rights, Shah’s sponsored westernization (sometimes called westoxification) had led the erosion of Iranian culture, weakening of Iranian nationalism and loss of sovereignty. This, consequently, fuelled the popular grievances and therefore popular rage against the regime. Therefore, participation in the movement came from all strata of society. People did not flock under one ideology. Rather, they came from many groups. Ideological and political opponents included remnant members of Mosaddegh’s National Front, Marxist-Leninist groups such as Tudeh Party, Islamic Marxists such as Mojahedine-Khalq Organization, Intellectuals, Bazaris (merchants) or petty bourgeoisie and many others.  

Hence, the question which is to be asked here is that how the revolution eventually went into the hands of ulema. How the clergy class became leaders of the revolution. And, how Iran turned into an ‘Islamic Republic’.

This is pertinent to mention here that Pahlavi dynasty, like previous regimes, had also embraced Shia Islam as its state religion. However, it did not allow it to emerge as a center of power. The Shah never co-opted clergy class. Thus Shah’s continuous efforts to erode the power base of the Shiite establishment (which had always been co-opted in previous regimes and enjoyed enormous power in the society) caused widespread disquiet among clerics and ultimately resulted into the rise of Neo-fundamentalist School of Thought (which believes that ulema are not to sit idle and just supervise the society, they are rather to be the executors of the Islamic ordinances and therefore required to be in politics) led by Imam Khomeini. Hence, ulema also stood against Shah and participated in the revolution very actively. Rather, they succeeded in becoming the leaders when the revolution was on peak.  

During the period leading to the revolution, democratic and secular forces such National Front (led by Karim Sanjabi and others) and many more tried to propel the movement with the hope of bringing in democracy and constitutional government. However, they could not build up the movement on this plain. They once again failed to succeed, as they (secularists and democrats) had twice in the past—1906 Constitutional Revolution and nationalization project of Mossaddeq in 1951-53.  

On the other hand, clergy class succeeded in consolidating themselves. It is worth noting here that Shah’s intelligence SAVAK had cracked down on every organization and their activities. They had suppressed all forms of political gatherings. But, it could not infiltrate into mosques where ulema used to organize their meetings. This worked as an impetus for clergy to rise and lead the movement.

It is significant to note that during entire period leading to the revolution, Imam Khomeini kept speaking and writing from his exile (Turkey, Iraq, and Paris), which emboldened his supremacy. His writings and speeches used to be smuggled in Iran and widely distributed among common masses. He, unlike others (secularists or democrats), had a blueprint in his hand. He not only categorically explained how to stand against the Shah but also defined the form of government (Islamic Government) based on his theory of velayat-e faqih—Guardianship of the jurisprudent, which he proposed to be established after Shah was overthrown.

Imam Khomeini: Ideologue of Islamic Republic

In Shiite tradition there was a dominant school of thought called ‘quietist school of thought’ led by leading mujtahid Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Burujerdi. This school of thought believed that Shiism demanded quietism and submission to the authority i.e. until the return of twelfth Imam, mujtahids (the most learned of the ulema, who were expert in shariah law) were supposed to guide people in the matter of religion. They were ethical guide to the community and there was no scope for them to indulge in active politics.

However, after the death of Burujerdi there emerged two schools of thought reacting against this quietist school of thought. One is ‘Neo-fundamentalist School’, which is identified with Ruhullah Musavi Ayatollah Khomeini, born on 24th Sep. 1902, in the village of Khomein, sixty kilometers away from Tehran. The other one is ‘Reformist-Modernist School’ which is associated with the leading moderate ulema such as Ayatollah Murtuza Muttahhari and others.

Thus, Imam Khomeini led the ‘Neo-fundamentalist School’ which believed that only guiding the community would not fulfill the responsibility of ulema. After Ayatollah Burujerdi (the leader of quietist school of thought) died in the early 1960s, Khomeini gained space in the society. He, then, openly called for active participation of clerics in politics. He specifically wrote about it and appealed to the clergy to give up the belief in sitting idle. While opposing white revolution (a serried of reforms announced by the Shah) in 1963, he got an opportunity to launch his line of thinking. His followers including his students came out on the street and demonstrated the strength of clergy class. With Khomeini’s charismatic entry, it became evident that clergy class had given up its belief in remaining just a guiding entity and rather decided to embrace politics. Thus, this development emerged as a threat to the Shah. Hence, resultantly, the Shah exiled Khomeini to Turkey on 4^th Nov. 1964 and thereafter to Iraq (in Nov. 1965) and then to Paris (in October 1978). However, about fifteen years of exile gave Imam Khomeini an opportunity to speak up openly against the regime. Throughout his stay in Iraq he continued speaking and writing against the regime and mobilized the people of Iran. Significantly, he also wrote about the scheme of government which he was dreaming of to establish. Apart from other writings and speeches, his thirteen speeches delivered during his stay in Najaf (Iraq) from January 21 to February 8, 1970, which have been compiled in the name of Governance of the Jurist, is the major source of his thought regarding reconstruction of Shiite Islam. It is in fact the foundation of his theory and ideology upon which Islamic Republic of Iran is built on.

Thus, Khomeini believed that Islam was not limited to worshiping. He argued that the appointment of the successor (caliph of the prophet) itself proves that the Prophet himself emphasized the inevitability of the governance. For him, presence of law (shariah) is itself more than enough to prove that there must be an executer. In his book, Governance of the Jurist, he says that, “Law requires a person to execute it……after a law is established, it is necessary also to create an executive power…….thus Islam, just as it established laws, also brought into being an executive power”.

Hence, seeing the revolution progressing to its success, the Shah left Iran on 16^th January 1979. Khomeini returned to Iran on 1^st February 1979. He was welcomed by millions of Iranians on the street. On 11^th February Imam Khomeini appointed Mehdi Bazargan as interim prime minister, hence formally declared the end of monarchy. A referendum was held on 31^st March 1979 to declare Iran as Islamic Republic with an Islamic government i.e. velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Jurisprudent). The newly proposed constitution included an ‘Islamic Jurist’ (Vali-e Faqih)—Supreme Leader—which was adopted in November 1979 and none other than Imam Khomeini himself was instituted as Supreme Leader.

Thus, the ultimate power was vested with Vali-e Faqih, who was considered to be above every institution of the nation (including, president, parliament, judiciary and army), in order to rule in the name of God and implement shariah. The final authority, hence, rests in Supreme Leader and therefore the entire apparatus of the nation runs in his name.  
https://countercurrents.org/2019/02/24/fortieth-anniversary-of-iranian-revolution-how-iran-became-islamic-republic/

غلاظت صاف کرنے کو روحانی عمل بتانے والے مودی صفائی ملازمین کے پاؤں کیوں دھو رہے ہیں ؟

ذات پات کو صحیح ٹھہرانے والے نریندر مودی نے گجرات کا وزیر اعلیٰ  رہتے ہوئے اپنی کتاب’ کرم یوگی ‘میں غلاظت صاف کرنے والے دلتوں کو ان کی مجبوری کا کام نہیں بلکہ روحانیت کا کام قرار دیا تھا۔

گزشتہ اتوار کو سوشل میڈیا پر پورے دن وزیر اعظم نریندر مودی کی’روح پرور ‘تصویر گردش کرتی رہی۔دنیا کی سب سے بڑی جمہوریت کے وزیر اعظم کو صفائی ملازمین کے پیر دھوتے ہوے دیکھنا ، بلا شبہ معمولی بات نہیں تھی۔ یہ الگ بات ہے کہ آپ نے اس کے کیا معنی نکالے۔اس میں بھی کوئی شک نہیں کہ وزیر اعظم کی یہ تصویر انکساری کا بے مثال نمونہ تھی۔

مگر کیا بات یہیں ختم ہوجاتی ہے؟ شاید نہیں۔وہ اس لئے کہ اس روح پرورتصویر کو دیکھتے ہوے درجنوں سوال ذہن و دماغ میں ہچکولے مار رہے تھے۔خیر، سر دست دو سوال ہیں۔ صفائی مزدروں کے لئے بے پنا ہ محبت دکھانے والے وزیر اعظم نے اپنے دور حکومت میں کیا کیاہے؟ دوسرا، صفائی مزدوروں کی بے پناہ عزت کرنے والے نریندر داس مودی کی ان کے بارے میں کیا رائے ہے؟

2013 میں prohibition of employment as manual scavengers and their rehabilitation Act. نافذ ہو گیاتھا۔اس قانون کے تحت پورے ملک میں ہاتھ سے سیورز یا سیپٹک ٹینکز کی صفائی پر پوری طرح سے پابندی لگ گئی تھی۔مگر آپ جانتے ہیں، آج بھی صفائی مزدور اپنے ہاتھوں سے ہی غلاظت صاف کر رہے ہیں۔یعنی مذکورہ قانون ابھی تک کاغذوں میں ہی اپنا وجود لئے بیٹھا ہے۔دہلی میں صرف گزشتہ ستمبر( 2018 )میں سیورز کی صفائی کرتے ہوئے 6 مزدو روں کی موت ہو گئی تھی۔

نیشنل کمیشن فار صفائی کرمچاری کے مطابق جنوری 2017 سے اب تک ہر پانچویں دن ایک صفائی مزدور کی موت واقع ہوئی ہے۔صفائی کرمچاری آندولن کے مطابق 2017سے18میں تقریباً 300 مزدوروں کی موت واقع ہوئی ہے۔ حیرت کی بات ہے کہ اس حوالے سے سپر یم کورٹ کے بھی کئی فیصلے آ ئے ہیں، مگر حکومت نے ہر بار بات آئی گئی کر دی۔

صفائی کرمچاری کے حوالے سے اس مختصرسی تفصیل کو جاننے کے بعد وزیر اعظم کی تصویر کتنی روحانی رہ جاتی ہے، یہ آ پ خود فیصلہ کرلیں۔خود آپ ہی یہ اندازہ لگا لیں کہ وزیر اعظم نریندر مودی کی حکومت نے صفائی مزدورں کے لئے کیاکیا ہے۔مزدوروں کے لئے ٹکنالوجی سے لیس مشینیں اور مناسب تنخواہ کا بندوبست بھلے ہی موجودہ حکومت نہ کر پائی ہو، مگر یہ بات ہم سب جانتے ہیں کہ کروڑوں ر وپے صرف سوکش بھارت ابھیان کے پرچار میں صرف کر دیے گئے۔

دوسرا سوال ، جو زیادہ اہم ہے وہ یہ ہے کہ صفائی مزدوروں کے بارے میں نریندر مودی کی کیا رائے ہے۔پریاگ راج سے آئی روح پرورتصویر کو دیکھ کراس سوال کا ذہن میں آ نا با لکل بھی غیر معمولی بات نہیں ہے۔یہ سوال اس لئے بھی ضروری ہے کیونکہ حکومتی ناکامی کا ٹھیکرا کئی ساری چیزوں کے  سر پھوڑا جا سکتا ہے، مگر ان کے تئیں آپ کی رائے کیا ہے، اس سے آپ اپنا پلڑا کیسے جھاڑ یں گے۔

کم لوگ ہی جانتے ہوں گے کہ ہمارے وزیر اعظم مصنف بھی ہیں۔ مجھ پر اس علم کا انکشاف چند مہینے قبل تب ہوا جب میں ضیاء السلام صاحب کی کتاب of saffron flags and skullcaps پرتبصرہ کر رہا تھا۔ ضیاء نے نریندر مودی کی تصنیف کا ذکر بہت تفصیل سے تو نہیں کیا ہے، مگر قدرے جانکاری ضرور فراہم کی ہے۔شاید اس وجہ سے کہ کتاب اب سرکولیشن میں نہیں ہے۔ در اصل وزیر اعظم نے سال 2007 میں’کرم یوگی’ نام کی کتاب لکھی تھی۔

فوٹو : پی ٹی آئی

اس وقت وہ گجرات کے وزیر اعلیٰ ہوا کرتے تھے۔101صفحات پر مشتمل یہ کتاب ان کی تقا ریر کا مجموعہ تھی ۔ مگر جیسے ہی یہ کتاب منظر عام پر آئی ، تمل ناڈو اور مہاراشٹرا میں دلت سڑک پر اتر آئے تھے۔ کتاب اور کتاب کے مصنف کے خلاف متعددمظاہرے اور احتجاج ہوئے ۔ معاملہ یہ تھا کہ مصنف نے اپنی کتاب میں دلتوں کے ذریعے غلاظت صاف کیے جانے کو جائز ٹھہرا دیا تھا۔ انہوں نے ان لوگوں کوبھی اپنی تنقید کا نشانہ بنا یا تھاجو یہ مانتے ہیں کہ دلت یہ کام مجبوراً کرتے ہیں، کیونکہ ان کے پاس اپنا پیٹ پالنے کے لئے دوسرا کوئی ذریعہ معاش نہیں ہے، یا یہ کہ سماج انہیں دوسرا پیشہ اختیار کرتے ہوے قبول کرنے کو تیار نہیں ہے۔

نریندر مودی نے اپنے جواز میں یہ بات کہی تھی کہ دلت جو کام کرتے ہیں اس کے پیچھے مجبوری نہیں بلکہ’روحانیت’پنہاں ہے۔ وہ لوگ جو اس کتاب کی مخالفت میں آ وازیں بلند کر رہے تھے ، ان کا یہ ماننا تھا کہ ایک وزیر اعلیٰ ذات پات کے نظام کو صحیح کیسے ٹھہرا سکتا ہے؟گرچہ یہ کتاب سرکولیشن سے واپس لے لی گئی تھی، اور اب یہ دستیاب نہیں ہے، مگر ضیاء نے اپنی کتاب میں جناب مصنف کی کتاب ‘کرم یوگی’ کا اقتباس رام پنیانی کی کتاب Ambedkar and Hindutwa Politics سے اخذ کیا ہے۔ میں اس اقتباس کا اردو ترجمہ یہاں پیش کر رہا ہوں؛

میں یہ نہیں مانتا کہ وہ لوگ (والمیکی) یہ کام محض اپنا پیٹ پالنے کے لئے کرتے ہیں۔اگر ایسا ہوتا تو پیڑھی در پیڑھی وہ لوگ یہ کام نہیں کرتے۔میں یہ سمجھتا ہوں کہ کبھی نہ کبھی کسی شخص پراس علم کا انکشاف ضرور ہوا ہوگا کہ جو کام وہ کرتے ہیں در اصل وہ کرنا ان کا فرض ہے، اور اسی میں نہ صرف سماج کی بہبودگی ہے بلکہ بھگوان کی خوشنودی بھی ؛انہیں یہ کام کرنا ہے، کیونکہ یہ بھگوان کا حکم ہے۔ صفائی کا یہ کام بطور روحانی عمل صدیوں چلتے رہنا چاہئے۔یہ یقین کرنا ناممکن ہے کہ ان کے آباواجداد کو دوسرا کوئی اور پیشہ اختیار کرنے کا موقع نہیں ملا ہوگا۔

نریندر مودی کی ان با توں میں ہمارے دوسرے سوال کا جواب صاف صاف درج ہے۔لہذا ، دونوں سوالوں کا جواب آپ کے سامنے ہے۔ اب اس روح پرورتصوریر کو پھر سے سامنے رکھیے اور فیصلہ کیجئے اس میں کتنی روحانیت باقی رہ جاتی ہے۔

(مضمون نگار بلاگر اور مترجم  ہیں۔)

ایران:آخر نسرین ستودہ کا جرم کیا ہے؟

 ایران کی اسلامی حکومت آ ئے دن حقوق انسانی اور آزادی کے لئے آ واز بلند کرنے والے دانشوروں اور طلباء کو ہراساں کرتی رہتی ہے، یہ خبر سب سے زیا دہ افسوس ناک ہے۔

نسرین ستودہ، فوٹو بہ شکریہ، ٹوئٹر

ایران کی مشہور حقو ق انسانی کی وکیل اور حقوق نسواں کی علم بردار نسرین ستودہ کو ملک کی عدالت نے گزشتہ سوموار کو 38 سال قید کی سزا سنائی ہے۔حکم یہ بھی ہوا ہے کہ انہیں 148کوڑے مارے جائیں۔نسرین ستودہ نے گزشتہ سال ایران کے لازمی ڈریس کوڈ یعنی حجاب کی مخالفت کی تھی۔ وہ خواتین کے اس گروپ کی نمائندہ تھیں، جنہوں نے حجاب کے لازمی استعمال کے خلاف مظاہرہ کیا تھا ۔

گزشتہ جون میں انہیں ان کے گھر سے گرفتار کر لیا گیا تھا۔ایمنسٹی انٹرنیشنل کی ویب سائٹ پر چھپی خبر کے مطابق عدالت نے انہیں سات الزامات میں قصور وار ٹھہرا یا ہے۔ ایمنسٹی انٹر نیشنل کے ڈائرکٹر فلپ لوتھر نے کہا ہے کہ ؛یہ نہایت ہی حیران کن بات ہے کہ نسرین ستودہ کو پر امن طور پرانسانی حقوق کے لئے کام کرنے اوران خواتین کے ساتھ کھڑے ہونے کے لئے ،جو لازمی حجاب کے خلاف مظاہر ہ کر رہی تھیں، قریب چار دہائی قید اور 148کوڑے کی سزا سنائی گئی ہے۔

حیرت کی بات ہے کہ حقوق انسانی کی وکیل کے خلاف اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کے ذریعے اٹھا ئے گئے اس قدم کی چو طرفہ مذمت نہیں ہو رہی ہے۔دوسری طرف ، چونکہ یہ فرمان یا سزا اسلام کے نام پر سنائی گئی ہے،لہذا مسلم دانشوران اور خصوصی طور پر علماء کی جانب سے مذمت کی کسی خبر کا نہ آ نابھی تکلیف دہ ہے۔عینی زیدی نے اپنے فیس بک پیج پر حیرت کا اظہار کرتے ہوے بجا لکھا ہے کہ عام طور پر بھارت کے مذہبی لیڈرز دنیا کے ہر کونے(فلسطین، عراق، چین وغیرہ) میں مسلمانوں پر کیے جانے والے مظالم کی مذمت کرتے ہیں، مگر جب معاملہ ایک خاتون کی آ زادی کا ہے، اس کی عظمت کا ہے،تو سارے مرد خاموش ہیں۔انہوں نے مردوں کے ا س امتیازی رویے پر افسوس کا اظہار کیا ہے۔انہوں نے یہ لکھا ہے کہ مرد یہ کیوں بھول جاتے ہیں کہ اسلام کا یہ بنیادی قانون ہے کہ مذہب میں جبر کی کوئی گنجائش نہیں ہے۔

یہ بات درست ہے کہ ایران کی اسلامی حکومت آ ئے دن حقوق انسانی اور آزادی کے لئے آ واز بلند کرنے والے دانشوروں اور طلباء کو ہراساں کرتی رہتی ہے، مگر یہ خبر سب سے زیا دہ افسوس ناک ہے۔ شاید اسی لئے ایمنسٹی انٹر نیشنل نے بھی یہ رپورٹ کیا ہے کہ گزشتہ چند سا لوں میں ایران میں حقوق انسانی کے کارکنوں کے خلاف لئے جانے والے فیصلوں میں یہ سخت ترین ہے۔

یہ نوٹ کرنا اہم ہے کہ یہ خبر تب آئی ہے، جب ایران اپنے انقلاب کے چالیس سال پورے ہونے کا جشن منا رہا ہے۔ اوردوسری طرف تب جب ملک کے صد(حسن روحانی) کا شمار ایک ’ریفارمر‘ اور ’لبرل‘ کے طور پر کیا جا تاہے۔

ایران کے انقلاب(1979) میں ملک کی خواتین نے برابر کی حصہ داری نبھا ئی تھی۔مگر افسوسناک ہے کہ آج وہ اپنے ’آزاد‘ ملک میں بد ترین قسم کے امتیازی سلوک کا شکار ہیں۔ پردہ یا حجاب کا استعمال گرچہ بہت حد تک ایران کے کلچر کا حصہ ہے،لیکن یہ بات نوٹ کرنے کی ہے کہ ایرانی انقلاب سے قبل اس کا استعمال لازمی با  لکل بھی نہیں تھا۔یہی وجہ ہے کہ ایرانی انقلاب میں مردوں کے ساتھ ساتھ جب خواتین بھی سڑکوں پر اترآئیں، تو ان میں نہ صرف وہ خواتین تھیں جن کے سرچادر یا حجاب سے ڈھکے تھے بلکہ ایسی خواتین بھی نمایاں تھیں جن کے لباس مغربی تھے۔یعنی باحجاب اور بے حجاب، مذہبی اور سیکولر ، امیر اور غریب سبھی عورتوں نے انقلاب میں حصہ لیا۔

مگر دلچسپ بات یہ ہے کہ ایک طرف تو ملک ’ آزاد ‘ ہوا، مگر دوسری طرف ملک کی خواتین پر ’غلامی‘ کے نئے روپ نے دستک دے دیا۔باحجاب عورتیں ’پاک‘ سمجھی جانے لگیں، جبکہ سیکولر اور ماڈرن خواتین کے ساتھ ’مغربی‘ اور ’بے حیا‘ جیسے القاب مسلط کردیے گئے۔انقلاب کے لیڈر آیت اللہ خمینی نے 6مارچ1979کویہ فرمان جاری کیا کہ اب ہر خاتون کے لئے حجاب اوڑھنا لازمی ہوگا۔1983میں اس فرمان کو قانونی شکل بھی دے دیا گیا جب ایران کی پارلیامنٹ نےIslamic Punishment Law پاس کر دیا اور حجاب کی خلاف ورزی کرنے پر 74 کوڑوں کی سزا مقرر کر دی۔اتنا ہی نہیں، 1995میں اس سزا میں اور اضافہ کر دیا گیا۔حجاب کے استعمال سے انکار کرنے اور اس کی مخالفت میں سرعام مظاہرہ کرنے پر 10-60 دنوں کی سزا متعین کر دی گئی۔

امام خمینی نے فروری 1979میں ایک انٹرویو میں خواتین اور حجاب کے حوالے سے جو کہا، وہ ملاحظہ کریں؛

وہ خواتین جنہوں نے انقلاب میں حصہ لیا، وہ با حیا تھیں اور ہیں۔ وہ تمہاری طرح سڑکوں پربے پردہ نہیں گھومتی ہیں، جن کے پیچھے مردوں کا جھنڈ منڈلاتا رہتا ہے۔وہ تمہاری طرح بازاروں میں نہیں پھرتی ہیں اور میک اپ کر کے اپنے گردن، خدوخال اور بال کی نمائش نہیں کرتی ہیں…

(Women and Politics in Iran: Hamideh Sedghi, 2007)

اسی طرح ایران کے پہلے صدر ابوالحسن بنی صدر نے 1981 میں حجاب کے استعمال کے لئے جو جواز پیش کیا وہ بھی ملاحظہ کرلیں؛

تحقیق نے یہ ثابت کر دیا ہے کہ خواتین کے بالوں سے ایک قسم کی شعاع نکلتی ہے، لہذا ان کا ڈھانکا ضروری ہے۔

(Women and Politics in Iran: Hamideh Sedghi, 2007)

1979کے ایرانی انقلاب کو عام طور پر ’اسلامی انقلاب‘ کہا جا تا ہے۔ مگر قابل ذکر بات یہ ہے کہ یہ انقلاب عوام کا تھا۔ اس انقلاب میں لوگ اسلام کے نام پرنہیں ایران کے نام پر شامل ہوئے تھے۔یہی وجہ ہے کہ شامل ہونے والے لوگوں میں شہری بھی تھے اور دیہاتی بھی۔ مذہبی بھی تھے اور سیکولر بھی۔مرد بھی تھے اور عورت بھی۔البتہ یہ بات درست ہے کہ ’اسلام‘ نے پورے انقلاب کو اچک لیا۔امام خمینی کی لیڈرشپ میں علماء نے بڑی کامیابی سے مذہب کا رس گھول دیا اوردیکھتے ہی دیکھتے انقلاب اسلامی ہوگیا۔

یہ سب ’غرب زدگی‘ (westoxiation)کے نام پر ہوا۔ مغرب کے خلاف نفرت کو بھڑکا یا گیا۔ اور ہر وہ چیز جو ’ مغربی ‘ تھے اسے قبیح قرار دیا گیا۔انقلاب تو کامیاب ہو گیا، اور ملک کوبادشاہت کے چنگل سے نجات بھی مل گئی، لیکن کیا ملک واقعی آزاد ہوا، یہ سوا ل اب بھی زندہ ہے۔اسی ’غرب زدگی ‘ کی بنیاد پر جس کے سہارے انقلاب کو ’اسلامی ‘ بنا یا گیا تھا، آج ملک کی اسلامی حکومت انفرادی آزادی کے نام پر اٹھا ئے گئے ہر آ واز کو دکچل دیتی ہے۔ملک کو بھلے بادشاہت سے آزادی مل گئی ، لیکن لوگوں کو آج بھی آ زادی میسر نہیں ہوی ہے۔ اور جہاں تک خواتین کا سوال ہے، وہ تو برابر کی شہری بھی نہیں ہیں۔

http://thewireurdu.com/56231/iran-what-is-the-crime-of-nasrin-sotoudeh/
(مضمون نگار بلاگر اور مترجم  ہیں۔)

Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam Ke Nam Per Dunya Ko Thagna Band Kijie

I love my country and I am not a Nationalist

Syed Kashif In this turbulent age of nationalism and patriotism I often remind Rabendranath Tgore and his ideas of love and universal brotherhood. Not only the roar of ‘Indian nationalism’ has always tempted me to recollect his ideas but also it provides me some moments of relief as I dream of that in place. Tagore was the great humanist. His huge love for humanity sometimes left many people to doubt his patriotism as he used to criticize the ways and patterns of protests against the British rule. For instance, his opposition of Swadeshi movement and noncooperation movement of 1921 provided the ground in this regard. He was as much humanist that he even could not bear the smell of hatred in any movement or voice. He had doubt that those movements may result into hate for man against man. To avoid the blame of lack of patriotism Tagore said, ‘It is not that I do not feel anger in my heart for injustice and insult heaped upon my motherland. But this anger of mine should be turned into the fire of love for lighting the lamp of worship to be dedicated through my country to my God. It would be an insult to humanity, if I use the sacred energy of my moral indignation for the purpose of spreading a blind passion all over my country’ (quoted in the introduction written by Ramchandra Guha for ‘Rabendranath Tagore: Nationalism’, published by Penguin Books India, 2009: xxviii). In short he believed that the kind or the ways of protest was paramount to insult to the virtue of humanity or blot on the idea of love and universal brotherhood. However, Tagore’s resistance against the pattern of freedom struggle in general and ideas of Gandhi ji in particular is another issue of debate which I am not dealing here. But this is obvious that he was as patriot as Gandhi ji and any other Indian for that matter. He had no disagreements on the ultimate goal of freedom struggle which was for getting rid of alien rule. Tagore was not against one nation in particular, but against the general idea of all nations. In other words he was not against the nation per se. But he opposed the idea of organizing people in the name of nation. He argues, ‘it is the aspect of the whole people as an organized power. This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient…….for thereby man’s power of sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate object, which is moral, to the maintenance of this organization, which is mechanical’ (Tagore: Nationalism 2009: 73). He bluntly criticized the western nationalism. He put that in the above context as he argued, ‘all the great nations of the Europe have their victims in other parts of the world’ (ibid. 69). ‘He believed that colonialism was the product of nationalism and therefore he called it menace. He adds, ‘nationalism is a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles. And inasmuch as we have been ruled and dominated by a nation that is strictly political in its attitude, we gave tried to develop within ourselves, despite our inheritance from the past, a belief in our eventual political destiny’ (ibid. 74). Here it is clear that Tagore was very much wary of the spread of western idea of ‘nationalism’ with which India was getting affected due to the presence of British in India. He was categorically against the idea of uniting people in the name of ‘nation’. He believed that India had never been one nation and therefore he opposed the propagation of it and undermining the diversity of India. Therefore, while delivering his lecture in the USA he said, ‘We in India must make up our mind that we cannot borrow other people’s history, and that we stifle our own we are committing suicide. When you borrow things that do not belong to your life, they only serve to crush your life’ (ibid. 71). In the same plain, Tagore said, ‘India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from childhood I had been taught that idolatry of the Nation is almost better than reverence of God and humanity, I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain their India by fighting against the education which teaches them that a country is greater that the ideal of humanity’ (ibid. 70). It can be said that the teaching which Tagore wanted to be unlearned is still in existence in India. Still we have not learnt that unlearning is as important as learning. Even after so many years Indians have not adopted the lesson which Tagore taught them. Indians are yet in the illusion of ‘India’ while thrashing the humanity which Tagore kept above all. All these are significant because it is Tagore who wrote the national anthem of India and ironically Indians did not embrace the ideas of Tagore himself or say Indians did not follow the path of ‘nationalism’ which Tagore chosen. His love for humanity or universal brotherhood can be seen in his famous argument, ‘There is only one history—the history of man. All national histories are merely chapters in the larger one.’ (ibid. 65). Thus we can say that Tagore was not against the idea of nation but against ‘nationalism’ which carries along the substances of superiority and inferiority. He loved his country as he was a patriot. In other words, Tagore was a patriot who loved his country without being nationalist. In the country of such an enlightened thinker if we speak of jargons like ‘India First’ or ‘Secularism means India first’ or ‘Vote for India’ this is nothing but a shame. We sing his song as our national anthem but how unfortunate is this that we even do not bother to know what the idea behind his love for the country was. We have made his love of the land vey dwarf. Had Tagore been alive now, he would have certainly detested the cheap ‘nationalism’ which our leaders speak for. And yes, people may doubt my love to country after reading this article as some misunderstood Tagore’s love for the motherland. All these happen because we have conceived that for loving the mother land we have to be ‘nationalist’. But I declare I love my country and I am not a nationalist.

Barking man never thinks

Narendra Modi has continuously been vomiting the hatred which he possesses inherently. Expression of ‘no guilty feeling’ about Gujrat Pogrom is not new. He has been proclaiming it for years. In fact, he is correct. Why should a man be ashamed for something which he hatched? For the moment, suppose he was not the man behind the whole story. Even after this he cannot escape. Being the CM of the state he was bound to take responsibility for the whole incidents. But the sad part is that neither had he taken responsibility nor he expressed regret. And, the worst thing is that he is regarded as hero. Projection of Modi as brave and consistent failure of Indian complex judiciary is certainly encouraging people who aspire to be leader at the cost of communal card. In other words, Modi has become an exemplary for those who want to make a career through communal politics. The recent comment of Modi whereby he called Muslims puppies is again not shocking. But the thing which is important is that people or political parties in opposition are just taking advantage such comments for wooing and appeasing the minority community. Rather, such remarks should be seen as an attempt to spread enmity between communities. It spreads hatred among citizen. It divides communities who live together peacefully and amicably. It attacks the communal harmony for which India is known. Two days before Prakash Javedker and others were defending Mr. Modi for calling himself as Hindu Nationalist. Though I was not shocked by hearing such fanatic statements and arguments, however I thought if a Muslim would have called himself a Muslim Nationalist he must have been dubbed as anti-national. India is a secular state. There is no state religion. So, how a man or a woman can call himself/herself Muslim Nationalist or Hindu Nationalist? No nationalism is above the ‘Indian nationalism’. People may have belongings or leaning towards varieties of sentiments. But all will come later. I think this is an anti- national approach. It is a matter of shame that a man who is being proposed for PM of India is involved in anti-national activities. Few months back the same Modi had emphasized that India was first while he was defining secularism. But now he has turned his back. His religion is more important than India. India is less important for Modi and fans. As far as proposal of Modi as PM of India is concerned the important thing is that he is not a politician. Perhaps, somewhere he has claimed it recently. Had he been a politician he would not have spoken such malicious and anti-national remarks. He is even not fulfilling the expectation of those who have proposed his name. They must have been getting irritated by his immature and absurd statements. So, Modi just barks and does not think.

Is this a war between Shia and Sunni?

Syed Kashif
Though the oil wealth, a small population, huge government patronage, welfare economy and others play as immunities, there exist some significant factors also which may appear more potential than those immunities, for Saudi King. In Saudi Arab, so far, there have not been uniform mobilizations or agitations. However, Saudi youth, women and Shias in the eastern region of the country have exhibited their dissent separately.
But very significantly, there is no hope of aggravation of it. Saudi Arab’s new policies of employment (whereby every company has to reserve seats for Saudis) will certainly play a pivotal role in suppressing the uprising. As far as women are concerned, how could they make their voice audible alone in a country like “Saudi Arab”? In fact, King’s appeasement stand has also played significant role in forbidding women to speak out. Soon after King Abdullah had inherited the throne he had said that one day women would be able to drive. Last year King announced that he would grant women the right to vote and the right to run as candidate in the future municipal elections. Likewise he also said the he would like to appoint some women in his Shura Council as well.
But, certainly, though the agitation from Shias is in control, it is significant. Shias are the largest minority in the country. It consists of 15 percent of the Saudi population. Interestingly, agitation from shias is crucial because the oil wealth is located in their region only. Last year protests had started in their region in March and it has continued since. The eastern region in which shias reside is connected with Bahrain. In Bahrain seventy percent population is Shias. They are on the street against the Sunni government. So Shias of eastern region of Saudi Arab have continuously getting moral support. Moreover, they might get more than that in future. And, that is the biggest threat for sunni government of Saudi Arab.
In light of above story, Saudi government’s anxiety is not a shock. As the violence erupted in Bahrain the Saudi government rapidly stepped in. It sent its soldiers into Bahrain. “A convoy of 150 armored troop carriers and about 50 lightly armed vehicles carried about 1,000 Saudi soldiers across the King Fahad Causeway into Bagrain in mid-March”, says Gulshan Dietl, in his article, published in The Hindu on 31st March 2012.
Likewise, when we analyze the uprising of Syria, to a larger extent, we may realize that the present turmoil in Arab world is not as simple as it seems. It is not explicitly a want for democracy. Or, very importantly, it might have started in pursuit of freedom and democracy; elites are certainly trying to diverse or dilute it.
In Syria, the power is concentrated in the hands of Basharul Asad’s family and members of the Alawite (Shia) community. Claims of corruption and nepotism have been rife among the excluded Sunni majority. Protests have generally been biggest in Sunni-dominated rural areas, towns and cities, as opposed to mixed areas. Thus in case of Syria, where Sunni Muslims are about 74 percent of its total population, the Saudi Arab government has been in favor of protesters. It got exhibited when the Syrian Shia regime itself accused the opposition of militarizing the conflict and of "Wahhabism"; the strict interpretation of Sunni Islam adhered to by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is well known that both countries have condemned the crackdown on protests and advocated arming rebel groups.
The member states of Arab League, led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia has been openly lobbying against the Syrian regime. The League has, reportedly, imposed some economic sanctions on Syria as well. It has also been backing UN resolutions, though Syrian ally Russia has already vetoed it. Thus the Iranian Shia regime, which is roaring on behalf of Syrian Shia regime, is confident enough to fight with Sunnis and its ally US. Beside, Hezbollah (Shiates) is also openly backing Asad regime. It is doing so because in case of regime change in Syria, its strength will certainly be affected in Lebenon. Moreover, for Sunnis of Lebenon, the Syrian crisis may appear as a good opportunity to diminish the power of Hezbullah. Thus the whole scenario corresponds to a bipolar Arab consisting of Shias and Sunnis.
Nonetheless, it is worth to note that it is the West, and especially the United States, which is fueling the tension for decades by implementing a rudimentary geopolitical strategy of “divide and conquer” through the clumsy instigation of conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites. The United States and its allies are now siding with Sunnis and their key Saudis backers. It is, needless to say, a “master plan” against Iran and its allies such as Hezbollah. Neither Sunnis nor Shiites and certainly not Islam have anything to gain from this.

JINNAH: RATHER A POWER HUNGRY

After six decades of independence or partition of India, in spite of so many researches, still there remain various puzzles unsolved. The most significant and contentious among them is; whether Jinnah was secular or communal? Interestingly, the question gets revived when people like Advani and Jaswant, who are directly political descendent of the sect which categorically dubbed Jinnah staunch communal, visit Pakistan or even write books on Jinnah proving him secular.
Very interestingly, Mohammad Ali Jinnah joined Congress in 1906, the same year in which Muslim league was found. Jinnah had developed sense of political values in England during his education. He was deeply influenced by Dada Bhai Nauroji, the first Indian who became Member of Parliament in England. Jinnah used to listen the speeches of Nauroji in British Parliament which happened to be full of impatience for India’s freedom.1Thus it can be argued that the attachment with Nauroji led him to jump into politics.
Jinnah’s political life, due to instability in his ideological stand, can be analyzed into various phases. First, let us discuss his early political activism under the proposition ‘From Nationalism to Muslim Nationalism.’
From Nationalism to Muslim Nationalism
It was his nationalism and patriotism which tempted him to join politics. This is why he joined Congress and not League. He started his career with Tilak and Gokhle. In 1904, Jinnah attended the 20th session of All India National Congress, for the first time, held in Bombay. Later, in 1906, he joined congress session as personal secretary to its president Dadabhai Nauroji where he made his first speech on self-government resolution of the congress whereby he demanded deletion of the clause of the resolution which made provision for reservation of seats in the Legislature and services for the educationally backward classes in India. He said:
“If the Mohammedan community is meant by it, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Mohammedan community should be treated in the same way as the Hindu community. The foundation upon which the Indian National Congress is based, is that we all are equal, that there should be no reservation for any class or community and my whole object is that the reservation should be deleted”.2
He also opposed the partition of Bengal and characterized the separate electorate given to Muslims by Morley Minto Reform as “obnoxious virus introduced into the body politic of India with evil design”.3
Thus as he joined politics, he faced the question of separate electorate and of Muslim leaders not identical to congress leaders. Soon he realized its significance. Therefore he joined League in 1913. Within the League Jinnah tried to weaken the hold of pro-British elements. He made away the illusion of the leaguers that British were their well wishers. He aroused their patriotic feelings. He greatly strengthened the nationalist forces within the organization. Eventually, under his leadership, two some extent, League became identical with that of congress.
As a result of the hard work of Jinnah, both Muslim League and Congress, for their annual session, met at Bombay in Dec. 1915. The speeches from two platforms were similar in tone and theme. Later in 1916, the famous Lacknow pact was confirmed in their annual session at Lacknow.
Here, Jinnah made departure. He forgot his firm opposition of separate electorate. In Lacknow pact of 1916, he advocated that the Muslim representation to various legislatures “should be secured…by means of separate electorate….The demand for separate electorate is not a matter of policy but a matter of necessity to the Muslims, who require to be roused from the comma and torpor into which they had fallen so long”4
However, since congress accepted that demand and showed the accommodative attitude, things remained normal. Moreover, from 1916 to 1922 the annual session of both congress and league were held simultaneously and by 1922 there was no difference in their resolutions.
In 1920, Gandhiji very shrewdly supported the Khilafat movement which worked and consequently many Muslims joined congress. The movement brought top Muslim personalities to the forefront of politics. In the words of Saleem M.M.Qureshi, “until the time of Khilafat movement Muslim politics in India had mainly centered on loyalty to the British Crown with only a faint and almost unnoticed spark in the form of the 1913 change in the creed of Muslim League”5. In other words, Gandhi got the credit of making Muslims nationalists which so far Jinnah was enjoying.
Though Jinnah had joined the League for making bridge between Muslims and Hindus or strengthening nationalism among Muslims as well, he himself diluted, probably unconsciously, his goal by proposing separate electorate in lacknow pact of 1916, of which he was strictly against. Here I would argue that though Jinnah would have joined League with the idea of nationalism but soon he might have seen opportunity to become a great leader or a lone representative of Muslims. But unfortunately Gandhi, through Khilafat Movement, made a blow on his purpose. Consequently Jinnah found himself rejected in his endeavors to retain a position of strength in Indian politics. Thus, he resigned from Congress in 1920. However he continued to cooperate with it until 1937. Now he thought that to become the lone representative or champion of Muslims it would be better to remain only the member of Muslim League.
Blow to the goal of Jinnah led him to criticize Gandhiji’s religious and metaphysical approach openly. He accused him of reviving Hindu believes in Congress. Rather he argued that by ancient belief of ahimsa and the idea of ‘new life’ Gandhi was giving Congress a Hindu complexion. Here it is ridiculous that how could Jinnah see ancient belief in the idea of ahimsa which Gandhi simply meant non violence. Jinnah said “If by new life, you mean your methods and your programme, I am afraid I cannot accept them; for I am fully convinced that it must lead to disaster”6. Further, he “scented danger in all that was happening, and saw in this mass awakening a symbol of Hindu revivalism-a threat to his own community.”7
Such attitude of Jinnah got reflected in 1924 when he bluntly asked Muslims to organize themselves under the banner of the league.8 Therefore I can say that the seed of Muslim nationalism in Jinnah was laid only in 1916 which got out in 1920 whereby Gandhi did play a role. I may say that leaving congress for Jinnah was not simple. He must have been carrying personal goal in his mind. While acknowledging Jinnah’s effort to uniting Hindus and Muslims Nehru also attributed motives of personal snobbery to his leaving congress.9
In 1923, Jinnah had contested election for central legislative assembly seat as an independent candidate. After winning he had made his own party “Independent Party”, which soon vanished. This step can be seen as a chance taken to become champion which certainly did not work.
Scholars are not united on the question that when actually Jinnah resorted to Muslim nationalism. However, I would argue that the seed of ‘Muslim nationalism’ (it was just a tactic to hold power) was found in Jinnah right back in lacknow pact of 1916. Very significantly, it is true that after 1916 and even after 1929 Jinnah remained firm nationalist. We have various examples for that also. But it is worth noting that his weaker position in League (In league there was division; league of Shafi and league of Jinnah) had prevented him to exhibit himself as ‘Muslim nationalist’. In other words he remained in dilemma till 1937. In 1927 Jinnah with congress boycotted the Simon Commission while Sir Mohammad Shafi group of league welcomed the same hoping that the interest of the minorities would be safeguarded.
By 1927 Jinnah had gained that much strength which led him to build a formula which could prove beneficiary for his leadership. After the refusal of Simon Commission, at Conference of Muslim leaders in Delhi, Jinnah, in the name of reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims, had evolved a formula of three Muslim majorities’ provinces and allocation of seats in central legislative assembly instead of separate electorate. Or, going a step ahead he evolved the above idea instead of separate electorate which was already more or less under consideration. In fact, in 1916 congress had showed its nod to this demand. He was ready to accept joint electorate in return. But unfortunately it was categorically rejected in Nehru report of 1928. Interestingly, Nehru Report, at Calcutta, rejected all the Muslim proposals, except the one relating to joint electorate. The fairly moderate Muslim League proposals for greater provincial autonomy were then rejected, and this became for Jinnah the decisive ‘parting of the ways’ in retrospect a major landmark on the road to Pakistan (Sumit Sarkar, Indian Democracy: the historical inheritance) . Jinnah then had pointed out that Muslim minority in India needed safeguards because it was a cultural and religious minority and therefore its status was unalterable10. At that time Jinnah had warned “If you do not settle this question today, we shall have to settle it tomorrow”.11 A few moth later he formulated his Fourteen Points in which he lucidly summed up the Muslim demands.
Here the question arises that why did Jinnah go ahead? Why did he formulate new idea rather than separate electorate? What compelled him to come with this new idea of three provinces though there was already issue of separate electorate under consideration? I think this very idea of Jinnah tempted Congress or Hindu leadership apprehensive about Hindus. In other words, Jinnah himself made his Hindu colleagues his opponent.
Nehru report made him upset. He lost his hope to become a champion. Thus he left India. He remained in England till 1935.
Arrival with new enthusiasm
During his stay in England he met people like Liaqat Ali Khan and Iqbal who introduced him the idea of ‘Muslim Homeland’ in the subcontinent. Meantime in India top leaders of Muslims like Maulana Mohammad Ali, Sir Mohammad Shafi, were died. Sir Fazl-i-Huain and Agha Khan were losing their health. Thus Jinnah found the time ripe to take one more chance. He rushed back to India in 1935. However, after coming back he did not express the new idea bluntly whereas he ostensibly made effort to unite Hindu and Muslim but this endeavor was wrecked by the Congress victory in the general elections of 1937; now the Congress was strong enough to ignore both him and his League. In 1937, in his presidential address to League, Jinnah touched upon some of the suggestion made by Iqbal. However, he was not much confident about that idea. In fact he did not want to repeat the mistake of 1927 whereby he had surrendered separate electorate without taking his community into confidence. At that time he had not only failed to buy for Muslims the friendship and the support of Hindus but had also weakened his own position as the representative of Muslims. Therefore this time he wanted to unite the whole Muslim community under the banner of Muslim League. He asked the Muslims “to organize, consolidate and establish solidarity and unity. Service, suffering and sacrifice are absolutely essential before we can achieve anything big and secure our right place in the national life of our country”.12 In October 1937, he said that “we must develop power and strength and I entreat and implore that every man, woman and child should come forward to join the League and flood the ranks of the Muslims League in hundreds and thousands as quickly as you can.”13
To make his goal truth he left no stone unturned. He worked hard. He travelled all the places where minority was living. He made various provocative speeches. He openly left his idea of nationalism of which he was firm supporter. He did not hesitate to abandon his idea of uniting Hindus and Muslims. He was now no more an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity. Once he explained to Muslims:
You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical code of conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of every thing important life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence,…..in all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life which links us together.14
To identify himself with the new role he discarded his western dress and started wearing shirwani and cap. He started learning Urdu. When he went to Punjab and North-West Frontier, he sported Punjabi Salwar to give the impression that he was one of them. In conservative areas he would make sure that his sister Fatima who did not wear the veil, was not seated with him. Consequently Jinnah’s effort started working. People did get united. Although Muslims had not demanded Pakistan at the all India level till 1940, the Sindh provincial Muslim league Conference in 1938 adopted a resolution which read as under;
This conference considers it absolutely essential in the interest of an abiding peace of the vast Indian continent and in the interest of unhampered cultural development, the economic and social betterment and political self determination of the two nations known as Hindus and Muslims…..recommends to the All India Muslim League to devise a scheme of constitution under which Muslims may attain full independence. 15
However by that time the idea of Pakistan had spread across India. Now Muslim League was waiting just for more strength or ripe time. Eventually in 1940, in Lahore, League in its session on 22-24 March made the pronouncement of Pakistan. The session was attended as many as one lakh members. The resolution laid down that;
……geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustment as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent state’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.16
In 1942 congress demanded of the British to “quit India” whereas League said to the British that they must divide and then quit. Even after 1940 congress was in illusion that League was not much strong. It continuously ignored the League. In 1944 congress categorically rejected the Rajgopalchari’s offer to resolve the Congress-League tangle. Failure of Gandhi Jinnah meeting reminded congress that Jinnah had gained the strength. Thus in 1945, on June 25, congress was willing to accept the offer of Crips (which the congress had rejected in 1942) which was now renewed by Viceroy Lord Wavel in Simla. Congress was willing to accept the offer in the hope of avoiding partition while League turned it down in the hope of division. In fact, Crips mission had offered the right of complete independence to India as well as the right of opting out of the Indian union to any province or provinces. The offer was rejected by congress on the usual grounds and by the league for making Pakistan only optional.
Later in 1946, cabinet mission plan, as the new scheme came to be known. It provided for a federation with powers over only foreign affairs, defense and communication, thus reducing the power of the centre, and for the provinces to form subordinate unions of their own, thus conceding the principle of Pakistan while maintain the unity of India. Importantly Jinnah agreed and on june6, 1946 persuaded the League to accept the plan. In fact, though the plan had rejected a sovereign Pakistan, it had definitely conceded the demand in short term .However, in long term, there was still hope of separation for League with all six provinces intact. But there was another bad luck waiting for Jinnah. First congress accepted that plan but later argued that it would apply its own interpretation to the plan. Nehru explained the meaning of the qualified consent on July 10, 1946 by saying that Congress would apply its own interpretation to the plan and would enter the Constituent Assembly completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise. In addition, there would be no grouping of provinces, he argued.17 After getting this news Jinnah retaliated sharply. He rejected the plan, withdrew the League acceptance and declared: This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods.18
Henceforth no one could convince Jinnah .Both Wavel and Mountbaton tried to resuscitate the Cabinet Mission Plan, but Jinnah had no confidence in the word or the sincerity of the congress. Eventually what happened we all know very well. A united India got divided into two. Leaders made compromises to enjoy the luxury of chair at the cost of thousands of people. In the countryside people were butchering each other while leaders were busy in making effort to attain power.
Conclusion
When people intentionally start writing to prove the idea which he already carries in his mind, the stuff becomes bias. Importantly, I had also started writing this article with the intention of proving Jinnah Communal. But, if it would not be a self praise, I would like to say that during my inspection I strictly remained unbiased. That is why I failed to prove him communal. But I am certainly not disappointed on my failure or not doing my task. Because, during my research, the thing which I have explored, has rarely been highlighted.
Had Jinnah not joined the Muslim league he would have been a great nationalist leader of India. Though he joined league to strengthen nationalism but he himself got trapped in the net of Muslim nationalism. Scholars see the lacknow pact as his great effort to unite Hindus and Muslims. But the fact is just opposite. It was lacknow pact where the first brick of Muslim nationalism was laid down by Jinnah. Jinnah pleaded for separate electorate for which just before 8-9 years he had harshly opposed. In fact, after joining league in 1913, Jinnah very soon realized that he could become champion or lone representative of Muslims. Thus the demand of SE was just a tool to make the scope alive. Further in 1927 Jinnah’s demand of Muslim majorities’ provinces and allocation of seats in central legislative assembly, instead of separate electorate, raises a question. In fact, here Jinnah had again tried to widen the scope of becoming champion of Muslims. Jinnah had set out to England after the Nehru report sharply rejected his ideas. But interestingly there he could not give up his desire to become hero. Very soon he got influenced by Iqbal and Liaqat. He rushed back with the idea of ‘Muslim Homeland’ for which he worked very hard. In fact, in the idea of ‘Home Land’ he could see a good scope for becoming champion. For that matter, in those days how provocative speeches he used to give, is worth noticing. How radically he altered his dressing and life style is also significant.
As far as division of India is concerned, Nehru was to larger extent responsible for that. Jinnah had to just become a hero. He was dying to become a great leader. Cabinet mission plan was fulfilling his purpose and therefore he had agreed. But Nehru did not agree. What he had in his mind is another issue.
If Jinnah could not achieve his goal in cabinet plan, he got the same in later plan of Mountbatten. Thus the goal for which he had been striving for years he got in 1947. And the goal was nothing but to become hero or champion. He was nationalist but only for few years. He was certainly not communal as well. Had he been communal it would have been good for the people who are living in the present Pakistan. Had he been communal he would not have given his first speech to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, on being elected its first President, with full of secular ethos, on August11, 1947. Thus he was rather a guy who through ought his life, ran after power.

People Are Hypocrite

I wonder why there is not same people while there is an opposition of artist or writer like Salman Rushdie and M F Hussain; i think both hurt religious sentiments. You may say that it is obvious that both have hurt different religion. So its natural there would be different crowd. Yes to this extent it is ok. But it becomes unaccepteble when people, who opposed M F Hussain on the basis of religious sentiments, are shouting in favour of Salman Rushdie invoking the fredom of speech and expression. Likewise, protest of muslim against Rushdie can be considered hypocritical. Because the same people who are now on the street were treating the paintings of M F Hussain, which obviously hurt sentiments of Hindus,just a piece of Art.
I think pieces of arts which hurt sentiments of any religion must be condemned and banned. If there is an opposition to the entry of such writers, its right. They obviously should not be allowed in the place of residents whose religious sentiments had been hurt by their cheap creations. But the sad thing is that such oppositions become nonesense when it carries the substance of biasness.
India is a multi religious and cultural country. People of different cultures, belief and religion live together here. So they must respect each other's sentiments. Here, it is inevitable.
Hence all indians should speak together if any crazy people tries to hurt any belief or religion of the region.

Jamia Students Showed Their Skill...........

It is only you who makes your image.
Yesterday I attended a programme 'Mahfile Qawwali" organised by 'Old Boys Association of Jamia Millia Islamia.' I had never got an oppertunity to experience the mahfil of Qawwali. So when I had come across the news I was a little bit enthusiastic. Despite of pressures of exams at hand I pulled out some amount of time to attend the programme.
The programme was sheduled at 6:pm. But I was so excited that I reached the Auditoriam before time, at 5:30 pm. Unfortunately I had to wait more than half an hour. The qawwali started at 7:00 pm. But in the mean time there was another Qawwali..........Qawwals were none other than our frienmds; brillient students of Jamia............Not only in the mean time but also after the Qawwali started, the intelligent students of Jamia continued their Qawwali.
The student at their best strieved to show off their actual image among guests, dignitaries and invited qawwals. They made lewd comments on their own girl students very decently. They left no stone unterned to make the auditorium full of voice. They showed their expertise in sizzling. They even did not leve the their old boys. They welcomed them with their skilled 'SITY'. Why should they leave wives of their teachers. They did not miss to exhibit their speciality for which they are known. They did pass their faviourite comments on them with beautifull hissings as they entered.
Moreover, they made the qawwals also much 'happy'. They continously made interruptions with their 'appreciating' grumbles while they (QAWWALS)were presenting their kalam. The students tried utmost to applaud the kalam of qawwals with their screaming, roar, cry and fuss.
Eventually they compelled the odd audiences, who were willing to listen the qawwali, to leave the auditorium so that they (student) could not face any sort of hurdle while making hue and cry of appreciations.................................

My Role Model

Untill a few months ago I was in illusion that a role model must be someone who is a great personality or highly educated. But I am happy that now I am out of that illusion.
Recently I attended a group discussion class where the topic for debate was 'YOUR ROLE MODEL". As usual nearly all students named the different personalities of the World or India.
I got confused when my tern came. I had no name in my mind. But it does not mean I was not interested in designating any one as my role model. In fact befor that class I had never thought about this. I had never considered any one as my role model.
However, at that time I was deeply interested in calling some one my role model. After putting lots of effort suddenly a name came into my mind. But despite of naming him in the very next moment I kept my mouth silent. I could not speak out his name. But again since I had no option other than him I was tempted to ask my teacher whether a role model must be a highly educated or great personality.
"No, it can be any one.", the teacher replied me. I was so happy that i could not wait for a moment and screamed with enthusiasm by calling his name Waquar Ahmad.
But, unlike others, since my role model was not a great personality i was suppossed to speak much about him.
What I said there about him i would try to tell you now.
Yes, he is not a great personality or highly educated. But for me, he is more than that. He is, for me, not less than a great scholar.
To me, at the same time, he is an elder brother, a scholar, a guardian and a best friend.
Despite of all impossibilities it is he who encouraged me to gather courage for seting out to Delhi. Always he is like a source of inspiration.
In every discussion he has the quality to pull out some amount of encouraging stuff. He has an extra ordinary quality to make every chat interesting and source of knowledge. When he speaks it seems he is making a garland with lots of tiny flowers. He speaks not a single discouraging word. I have never seen him in angry mood. Even I have never seen him without smile.
You will be surprised to know when the most interesting topic of youth 'the love' comes up he speaks lot on that. He does not forbid to do so. He says youth must love but......the love which was done by Faiz Ahmad Faiz. A man can become a true human being if he loves. A man starts loving poors, downtrodden, orphans, hungers, thirsty and all the creatures of God if he loves truely.
It would be far better if you read some Ghazals of Faiz which is directly concerned to love.
I would not make more garland of praise because it might irritate you.But I am sure at least you would have imagined how interesting he is. You might have surprised to know that a role model can be a man other than a great scholat, highly qualified or a celibirity.

Justice Delayed Justice Denied

Normally every human being faces some puzzles which always roam around him/her. No doubt, I am also normal and the puzzle which roams around me is in the form of question.
I never understand why an accussed, in a case, gets bail after so many years? And, why another accussed, in another case, gets bail very next day? Why an accussed is found innocent and freed from bars after languishing there many years?
What kind of justice system is this? It is totally ridiculous when you keep an man behind bars for years and suddenly one day you find him innocent and thus ask him to go out. Why do you not check whether he is guilty or not expeditiously? Does a court or investigating agency enjoy a right to spoil the precious time of an accussed? Can any sort of court return his or her precious time which he or she spends inside the jail?
It is very common to read news like some body has been found innocent while he has been behind bars for years in India.
We know that recently seven accussed in the Malegaon blast case have got bail after spending 5 long years in the jail. They have got bail means that still accusation has not been proved against them. Thus they remained in jail for doing nothing. Can the court return them their 5 years? In case they are found innocent in trials; will it not be an irony?
The thing which is more important here in the above case is that only after Swami Asemanad's confession about the alleged involvment of right-wing Hindu fundamentalist the line of investigation changed. After the confession of Swami the investigation is under NIA. Earlier ATS and CBI were handling the case. Here it is clear that had Asemanand not confessed the case would have been in wrong direction and moreover investigaters might have convicted the accussed people.
ATS and CBI had accussed them because they were the members of SIMI. Whether SIMI was a terriorist organisation or not is a question of debate. I would not go into that. But I must say that just being a member of any organisation does not prove that you are involved in the activities that the organisation does. Recently, a Supreme Court ruling has also argued that membership of an organisation does not proves his or her involvement in a case.
As far as SIMI and ban on it is concerned I am not saying that it was not a terriorist organisation. I do not know whether it was or not. But an organisation which was involved in the killing of father of nation must be called terriorist organisation. It is the biggest irony of India that the organisation which killed Mahatma Gandhi, father of nation, is not banned in the country. It openly spread its philosophy of hatred in the country. It propagates its idiology of hindu nation in the world's largest democratic and secular country.