25ہزار ڈالراں دا عالمی
پنجابی ایوارڈ جتن والے پہلے پاکستانی
کہانی کار خالد محمود دھولکہ
المشہور نین سکھ نوں
ودھائیاں
مشہورپاکستانی
پنجابی کہانی کار،ناول نگار اورشاعر نین سکھ نے کینیڈا سے جاری عالمی پنجابی
ایوارڈ ''ڈھاھاں'' کا پہلا انعام جیت لیا۔ وہ پہلے پاکستانی ہیں جنھوں نے 35 لاکھ
کا انعام اپنے نام کیا۔ یہ ایوارڈ گذشتہ 8 سالوں سے جاری ہے اور ہر سال پنجابی
فکشن پر یہ ایوارڈ دیا جاتا ہے۔ اس سے قبل 7 بار جن کو پہلا انعام ملا ان میں کوئی
پاکستانی نہیں تھا کہ اس سال خالد محمود ایڈووکیٹ المعروف نین سکھ کی وجہ سے
پاکستان کو یہ اعزاز ملا ہے۔ کل رات 11 بجے کہانی کار،شاعر چئیرمین ایڈوائزری بورڈ
اور کینیڈا میں پنجابی زبان کو ریاستی سطح پر منوانے والےسادھو بیننگ نے یہ اعلان
کیا۔ مشہور عالمی ادارے برٹش کولمبیا یونیورسٹی کے تعاون سے جاری اس ایوارڈ کودنیا
ایک قدر سے دیکھتی ہے۔ تقریب سے ایوارڈ کے بانی برج ڈاھاں نے بھی خطاب کیا۔ نین
سکھ کو انکی نئی کتاب '' جوگی، سپ، تراہ'' پر یہ ایوارڈ ملا ہے جسے پنجابی کتابیں
چھاپنے والے ادارے ''کتاب ترنجن'' نے چھاپا ہے۔ اس سے قبل نین سکھ کو ڈھاھاں کا
دوسرا ایوارڈ ملا تھا جو 5 ہزار کینیڈین ڈالر کا تھا جبکہ یہ ایوارڈ 25 ہزار
کینیڈین ڈالر کا ہے۔ 2021 کے باقی دو ایوارڈ دلی کے بلبیر مادھو پوری اورامرتسر کی
سرگی جموں کو ملے ہیں۔ بلبیر مادھوپوری کو ''مٹی بول پئی'' اور سرگی جموں کو انکی
کتاب ''اپنے اپنے مرثئیے'' پر ایوارڈ ملے ہیں۔ یہ دونوں ایوارڈ دس، دس ہزار
کینیڈین ڈالروں کے ہیں۔ ایوارڈ کی پروقار تقریب سے برج ڈھاھاں کے علاوہ سادھو
بیننگ،ہریندر کور ڈھاھاں اور شہزاد نذیر خاں نے بھی خطاب کیا۔ خالد محمود دھولکہ
المعروف نین سکھ کا تعلق سرگودھا سے ہے اور وہ عرصہ دراز سے لاہورمقیم ہیں۔
Further readings about Nain Sukh
Aye Puray di wah Short Story collection
LHORE in 1920s till 1947
لہور، لہور اے
Partition of the Punjab of 1947 had ruined my city yet in many ways it has an inclusive approach, still in its veins. In between 1920s, 30s and 40s the city had witnessed many movements, misleading & illegal court decisions, K L Gaba, tricky Shaheedganj Sikh Muslim riots, rise & fall of Unionists, Lhore Improvement Trust, Lhore resolution etc but what K K wrote is also a strong color of the city. Lhore was in front row in Politics, Culture, Literature, leading the Punjab and that is why Congress favored its partition.
Now you read what K K Aziz wrote
From the 1920s onwards, perhaps since even earlier, Lahore was the most highly cultured city of north India. From here appeared the largest number of Urdu literary journals, newspapers and books and two of the best English language dailies. The Mayo School of Arts was flourishing. The Young Men Christian Association was active and its premises and hall were used by all communities for literary and social activities. The Government College was a distinguished intellectual centre whose teachers were respected and students considered to be the best representatives of modern Western education. The Oriental College was engaged in first class research. The annual plays staged at Government College and Dyal Singh College were awaited by the city’s elite with high expectations. Eminent journalists and columnists wrote for newspapers and graced literary gatherings.
The city rang with the echoes of the poetry of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Noon Meem Rashed, Hafeez Jullunderi and Akhtar Shirani. The Niazmandan-i-Lahore, the magic circle of A.S. Bokhari, M.D. Taseer, Hafeez Jullandheri, Sufi Tabassum, Syed Imtiaz Ali Taj and Hari Chand Akhtar, created enormous waves in the world of Urdu literature.
The well-to-do Westernized elite drank and danced and talked in the Gymkhana and Cosmopolitan clubs. The home grown dazzling lights set off their fireworks at the Arab Hotel, Nagina Bakery, Muhkam Din’s teashop, Halqa-i-Arbab-i-Zauq, India Tea House and India Coffee House. The greatest in the land, like Tagore, came and spoke at the SPSK Hall. Political debates were held at Bradlaugh Hall, Amrita Sher Gill painted and B.C. Sanyal sculpted. The best British and American films were screened at Regal and Plaza. There was even a school of ballroom dancing on the upper storey of Regal. The baithaks in the walled city trained young musicians and singers and invited the connoisseurs to come and listen to classical music. The radio came a little later and the literati wallowed in a new channel which immediately enlarged the circulation of what they wrote, said or composed. With Bokhari’s genius presiding over the radio network, the first generation of literary broadcasters was in the making.
A glorious physical setting for this pulsating intellectual activity was provided by the Lahore that the British had built between 1860 and 1935. Impressive edifices adorned the landscape: Lawrence Hall, Chiefs’ College, Government House, High Court, Masonic Lodge, Legislative Assembly, General Post Office, Museum, Mayo School of Arts, the University, Government College and Central Training College.
The queen of all roads, the Mall, was bordered by tall trees and wide footpaths, and boasted a glittering array of expensive shops. The race course and the Lawrence Gardens were the lungs of the city. No high-rise buildings existed. With no encroachments the roads looked wider. The bungalows of Davis, Empress, Egerton, Queens and Jail Roads were elegantly built and located in the middle of green lawns. The skyline was soothing. Nature’s green was the dominating colour of the city. Breathing was easy, and so was enjoying life.
Like all civilized cities, Lahore provided a wide range of restaurants where people gathered for pleasure, social interaction and intellectual gossip. The Nedous Hotel stood where Hilton was later built and still later the Avari; in it lived Abdullah Yusuf Ali who completed his translation and commentary of the Quran in one of its first-floor rooms. The serene Faletti’s was centrally located on Egerton Road, behind the assembly chamber and facing Rai Bahadur Saran Das’s mansion. Jinnah, Abul Kalam Azad and Ava Gardner stayed here. Later Sir Firoz Khan Noon made it his home.
At the corner of the present day WAPDA House, and facing the assembly chamber, was the Metro, where in summer tea was served alfresco and Miss Angela did her cabaret show. In the two hall-size rooms of the Shah Din Building was the Lorangs, the finest restaurant in town, patronized by the elite. Near it stood the Stiffles where the guests dined in dinner jackets, danced in the evening and lunched with their friends in as English an ambience as could be conceived. The Standard had its large premises next to the driveway leading to Regal Cinema and facing the Mall. Several steps lower than Stiffles and Lorangs in glory, status and prices, it catered for the middle class and was always crowded; in summer it used the large space between its building and the footpath as an open air tea house.
At the other end of this “West End” of Lahore was a cluster of humble eating places where the modest and poor intellectuals got together and stayed together for long hours, sipping coffee or tea, drinking glasses of water, and settling the problems of the world. The best of them was the India Coffee House, established by the Indian Coffee Board in the mid-1930s to popularize the drink. Next to it was the Cheney’s Lunch Home, and a hundred yards away the India Tea House. Almost next to it was the YMCA where the Halqa-i-Arbab-i-Zauq met every week. The “oriental” places drew a mixed crowd of journalists, poets and men of letters: the Arab Hotel on Railway Road opposite the Islamia College gate, the Delhi Muslim Hotel in Anarkali where Bokhari lived in the 1920s, and the Nagina Bakery at the corner of Anarkali and Nila Gumbad. To these was later added the Cecil, which was a small private business run by a Parsi family in its residence. Called “Pathraan wali Kothi” (bungalow built of stone and with tiled roofs) it was situated at the junction of Cooper and Dil Mohammad Roads, opposite today’s duty free shop. Among other places worth mentioning were the Indus Hotel, Volga and Orient on the the Mall, and Milk Bar in the Tollinton Market, and the Elphinstone, West End and bristol on McLeod Road.
The very names of these restaurants are enough proof of the Englishness of the city. This was confirmed further by the commercial establishments on both sides of the Mall, some of which survived British withdrawal.
Whiteway Laidlaw, the haberdashers, did business where Ferzsons now sells books. Smith and Campbell is still there, though of course under changed ownership. Rankin, at the corner of the Mall and Beadon Road, was a fashionable outfitter having the custom of the elite; it lived on for a few years after 1947. Goldsmith and Bal Moodie in the Shah Din Building, Jenn and Ellerton and Gillanders Arbuthnot are some of the shops I remember. All have disappeared.
Among the Indian shops almost all were under Hindu ownership and some of them had been opened in 1945-46, soon to be engulfed by disaster. In the Bank Square were the Sunlight Insurance, the brand new departmental story of Janki Das, and Devi Chand; on the Mall, Kirpa Ram in front of Regal; in Anarkali Narain Das Bhagwan Das ran the biggest pharmacy in town. Facing the high court building was the interesting haircutting establishment carrying the name of A.N. John. Many of the well-to-do went there under the impression that it was run by the British. Actually the owner was one Amar Nath who had added John to his initials and thus made a lot of money.
This piece of writing about Life in Lahore before partition is taken from the book Coffee House Of Lahore by Mr Khursheed Kamal Aziz Son of Barrister Abdul Aziz.
Watch the show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpAryqBGsdk
Will add more abstracts and write about it soon. Although these abstracts are enough to understand the British mind yet a commentary is essential to deconstruct it.
The history of our connection in India begins with our trading ventures, the story of the East India Company. It goes on with the contest with the French for the mastery of the peninsula, the gradual extension of British power, partly by conquest but still more by voluntary cession of authority to the British by those who sought, under our aegis, the peace and security often denied to them during the anarchic period that followed the breakdown of the Mogul Empire.....
just as India owes her unity and freedom from external aggression to the British, so the Indian National Congress itself was founded and inspired by men of our own race, and further, that any judgment passed on our rule in India by Indians is passed on the basis, not of what obtained in the past in India, but on the principles which we have ourselves instilled into them. I am well aware that many of those who have been closely associated with India are anxious about the future of the millions for whom we are now relinquishing responsibility
To all those men and women, who, although domiciled in the United Kingdom, are intending to remain in India after Pakistan, I would say: "You have a great task in front of you, namely, to cement the bonds of friendship between this country, India and Pakistan. You can accomplish as least as much in achieving this end as can the British Government."
This was clear many years ago to some of our wisest administrators, and I quote from a letter of Mountstuart Elphinstone as long ago as 1854: The moral is that we must not dream of perpetual possession, but must apply ourselves to bring the natives into a state that will admit of their governing themselves in a manner that may be beneficial to our interests as well as their own, and that of the rest of the world; and to take the glory of the achievement and the sense of having done our duty for the chief reward of our exertions.
Some 20 years ago, I was first brought into contact with it by being placed on the Simon Commission, and I think they would agree with me that the major difficulty that has faced all of us in considering the best way of achieving 2445Indian self-government has been the absence of mutual trust and toleration between the communities. It has sometimes been said by our enemies that this was a difficulty created by ourselves in order to perpetuate our own rule. Nothing could be more untrue
For myself, I earnestly hope that this severance may not endure, and that the two new Dominions which we now propose to set up may, in course of time, come together again to form one great member State of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The demand for self-government has been insistently pressed for many years by the leaders of political thought in India, and has been stimulated by the external situation, and particularly by those great waves of nationalist feeling that accompanied both the great wars. This demand is not peculiar to India, but has spread throughout Asia. It is the natural result of contact by dwellers in other continents with European political thought
-----------------------
In the absence from this Debate today, for reasons which are universally regretted, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), to whom the Prime Minister has paid a most graceful tribute, it has fallen to my lot to voice the views of the Opposition on this memorable occasion.....
The political history of the British in India begins in the eighteenth Century with the French wars in the Carnatic. Between 1745 and 1748 the French almost drove the British out of India. After the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle only Madras was left to us. In the next 12 years, by the genius of Clive, the French were expelled, and British authority firmly and finally established. From Clive's second governorship the third phase in this long story begins....
The decision of the present Government to leave India at a fixed date shattered, once and for all, the hope of unity. The only question which arose was whether the partition of India, now clearly necessary, could be achieved by peaceful methods or not. Partition which seems so easy a word to us Europeans, accustomed to minor groupings and small populations, is no clean-cut solution of age-long problems and processes. Enormous minorities will remain, however successful may be the work of the Boundary Commissions, on either side of the many frontiers. There is the possibility of Indian irredentism on an immense scale. Trieste, Trentino, Ireland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and all the other minority problems of the world fade into insignificance compared to these. Moreover, there are other peoples, neither Muslim nor orthodox Hindu, in large numbers 2467and of warlike character, who have a long tradition of loyalty to the Crown, who will be separated and divided, for instance, the Sikhs. Therefore partition, superficially attractive, like so many other superficially attractive remedies, has within it its own inherent dangers. The partition of the Punjab fills us with apprehension, and partition of Bengal is a most delicate and dangerous undertaking. Nevertheless, we can only repeat, with satisfaction, that peaceful partition is better than civil war. Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)
---------------------
We must recognise, on the other hand, that Pakistan raises very difficult questions indeed. The territory of Pakistan is not contiguous nor is its population homogeneous, and it will be very interesting to watch how this Dominion will fuse itself together and constitute a unitary State. One part of it is in the Northwest region, a very poor part of India. The other part is in the far east. Hundreds of miles separate the two parts. It must be very difficult for the Government of Pakistan to know how to correlate those two sections of the same State. It will be interesting to watch the progress it makes. Its -economics are equally difficult, because the Northwestern parts are very poor indeed. and the resources of Pakistan will not compare with the resources of India. Mr. Richards (Wrexham)
Read Complete debates in the link given below
For debates in House of Lords click here
https://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2021/07/what-happened-in-british-parliament.html
Watch the discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpAryqBGsdk
Will add more abstracts along with detail analysis of British mind soon,
I would only say that if India has gained a great deal from the British connexion, we also have gained not a little here from our connexion with India. I am not interested to-day in the past; I am thinking of the future. And, as one who has spent many years of his life in constant contact with these difficult Indian problems, I cannot help asking myself a number of grave and sometimes disturbing questions about the future. Let me put in the form of two or three sentences what is in my mind. Here are some of the questions that disturb me. Will the two Indias live together in peace, and succeed in eradicating Communism? Will a satisfactory place be found for the Sikhs, a great and vigorous community now inevitably divided as a result of partition? Will satisfactory relations be established between British and Indian India? Can Indian defence be assured under two separate Governments? Will Untouchability be abolished in the nearly 750,000 Indian villages? Will Communism during the next twelve months prove the most urgent danger in the Indian subcontinent? I put these questions to myself, not in any way to imply a pessimistic view that the two Indian Governments will not vigorously grapple with them. I put them this afternoon to show your Lordships how difficult is the situation with which these two new Governments are faced. VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
------------------------
I support the Bill because it is in the spirit and, indeed, in accordance with the definite terms of principles of policy to which this country, and all Parties in this country, have given their adhesion in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Atlantic Charter. The very first article of the Charter of the United Nations declares: "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples," and the Atlantic Charter, signed by the President of the United States and by the British Prime Minister on behalf of our two countries, declares that those countries "respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live." VISCOUNT SAMUEL
--------------------
I remember, when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, that the College porter left us one afternoon to go to his own home, and he told us that his wife was expecting to give birth to a child that evening. He came back next morning with rather a long face and told us that, instead of the single child that he was expecting to receive into his home, his wife had presented him with twins. Something like that has happened in India. Mother India has been in labor" for a very long time, and everyone has been wondering what would be the character of the infant that would come into being. Lo and behold! instead of one State emerging from the womb of Mother India, twin States are emerging, as described in this Bill. LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE
----------------------
LORD SINHA
My Lords, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to-day, after the galaxy of talent which has addressed your Lordships. I have long been a very silent member of your Lordships' House, in a remote corner of die Back Benches. But on this historic occasion I feel I must say how the British people have amply justified the reputation that they have had throughout the world of keeping their word—a reputation which they very nearly lost in India during the last two or three years. I was horrified at the bitterness and racial hatred that existed in India during that time. Some of us often triad to speak to our friends and to other people to try to combat this. But people were just berserk, and they would not see. I think that the whole world owes a great debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government for their act of faith—I can only call it an act of faith—in this great Bill that has been passed through the other place and is now passing through your Lordships' House so quietly and unobtrusively.
It is with very mixed feelings that we hear talk of partition. That is a word, nobody likes, and it always leads to trouble. But the world is very troubled just now, and again I think His Majesty's Government have given a great lead to all the nations by evaluating spiritual values. That is what is needed so badly in this world to-day. I am not here to preach, but I do feel that India, as your Lordships know very well, has a great spiritual background; and this act of faith by His Majesty's Government has made a strong appeal to them. In the midst of all the killing and riots that have been going on in the last year or so, not a hair of the head of any British man, woman or child, or any of their property, has been touched or damaged. I was there only last winter, and heard how much the Indian people feel that the 859British had justified their faith in them. Say what they would, they did have faith in the British, and that is why there was never any question of rebellion in India, as there was in other places.
I can only hope and pray, in the circumstances, that this great Bill will help India to realize her responsibilities. I am sure that the leaders of that great country are realizing their responsibilities. Mr. Jinnah said he would never accept a truncated Pakistan; but he has accepted it. There were other people who said they would not accept it but who have done so. I believe that this great offer of Dominion status, ably elucidated as it has been in your Lordships' House, will enable both Dominions after the transition stage to play a great part in the British Commonwealth of Nations, fighting side by side for liberty and freedom, as you have done for generations. Freedom is a great thing, but equality impresses even more; and as some of your Lordships have said, freedom and equality have been conferred on India by this Bill—so rightly named the "Indian Independence Bill." This act will greatly enhance your country's prestige in India.
------------------
I think everybody will agree, to the best of our ability. No doubt we have made mistakes; we are fallible, like all humanity, and it was inevitable that mistakes should be made from time to time. But I do not think we have any reason to be ashamed of our record in India. It is one of which any nation in the world might well be proud. But the very extent 861of our success undoubtedly did raise new and anxious problems, problems which affected the statesmen not only of this country but of India too. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
--------------
Question of minorities in both India & Pakistan
So far as the position of minorities is concerned I think it is very reassuring that both Parties have guaranteed that they will respect the rights of religious and social minorities. There is the charter of fundamental rights to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred and which will be included in the new Constitution of the Dominion of India. It is important to remember that this is not merely a declaration of religious freedom, but the desire is that its provisions shall be enforcible in the courts. I should like to mention an encouraging experience of my own in this connexion. The other day I had lunch with the Minister of Labour in the Indian Interim Government, who is himself a member of the Scheduled Castes. That would not have been possible, as I am sure noble Lords with experience would agree, a number of years ago, and I think it is in itself evidence of the direction in which the social evolution of India is moving.
I should also like, because at present the emphasis has been one-sided, to remind your Lordships that Mr. Jinnah has made a public statement in which he guarantees that the Moslem League will respect the rights of the minority communities. He is reported to have said that one cardinal principle which he had followed and adhered to was that minorities, to whichever community they belonged, should be treated fairly and justly, and every effort should be made by the majority community to create a sense of security and confidence in them. THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
--------------------
My Lords, I rise only because I think it is important that we should say what we feel at this moment. I do so after the noble Earl has sat down because I was given to understand that that would be for his convenience or the convenience of the House. I feel it is important to say what one has very much at heart, and especially if one's views happen to be unfashionable. The events which have led up to this development, to my mind, can be regarded only as a great human catastrophe. The withdrawal of British authority from India has already led to the loss of millions of lives in rioting and famine. About 2,000,000 people lost their lives in last year's famine. Famine had been banished from India since the Curzon Code, and that catastrophe can only be attributed to Indian incompetence and corruption. But the human misery that has so far occurred is small compared with the slaughter that is to follow.
Everyone must admire the adroitness with which Lord Mountbatten has achieved the transition stages, but we shall be merely deceiving ourselves and other people if we believe that any of the fundamental problems of India have been solved. What we are doing now is in fact to Balkanize India. There will be Pakistan, and there will be Hindustan and The States. Hyderabad has already declared that it is going to announce its independence and I understand that Travancore and other States are likely to take the same line. At the same time, racial and religious fires have never burned more fiercely. I was very glad to hear what the noble Earl said just now that there had been fewer riots and atrocities in the last few weeks—but only 872"fewer." The amount of violence there has been in India during the last two years is something terrible. The Army is now being divided into Hindu and Moslem, in the manner in which sides are picked before a football match. It is impossible to believe that peace will be maintained.
I am aware that I am in a small minority and very unpopular in saying this, but for God's sake do let us try to look facts in the face. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who said: "It was the cardinal vice of the inter-war period not to call a spade a spade." I believe there is a great truth in that statement. It seems to be a failing that affects this country after every great war. I cannot but regard the future of India under this settlement as a relapse into that internecine warfare from which Britain rescued her, and I shall be surprised if other countries do not intervene in that warfare, either openly or secretly. One thing we can be sure of, and that is that there cannot be democracy in India. There never was any hope of democracy in India in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian sense of the term, because the conditions which make democracy possible do not exist.
In our last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, paid me the honour of saying that he did not fundamentally disagree with my forebodings of slaughter. He appeared, however, to view that prospect with comparative equanimity. He was able to regard the matter from the detached standpoint of the historian. I understood him to say that in his view all this was inevitable and always had been inevitable—rather like the overwhelming of Europe by the Goths. But that seems to me to be relegating the politician's rôole to that of the spectator, and I cannot so conceive our duty. Some human disasters are acts of God, but a great many more are acts of man; and this belongs to the latter category. We have, in fact, been talked out of India. We have been talked out by theorists in India, in America and in England, most of whom never did a thing in their lives to better the lot of the peasants of India. We have been pursuing a false ideal in trying to inculcate and establish a democracy in a Continent where it was never possible. If we had come to the conclusion that we were unfit 873to govern India, it would have been better to have handed government over to enlightened Rajahs than to the politicians.
I am aware that this is merely lamenting over what I regard as spilt milk, and the question before the House is what policy we ought to pursue. It is easier to bring about disaster than to remedy it. It is easier to run a motor car into a ditch than to get it out. In the circumstances in which we are placed I am not criticizing Lord Mountbatten's policy. If Britain is to walk out of India, the quicker we walk out the better, but I believe that in doing so we are washing our hands of a trust which we should never have betrayed. When I am told that good government is no substitute for self-government, I reflect that it is equally true that self-government is no substitute for good government. The greatest boons that statesmen can confer upon their peoples are peace, justice, and individual liberty. Our modern politicians have thrown away the substance for the shadow of political liberty which, under the present conditions and development of India is, I believe, unattainable. In doing so, they have betrayed the trust of scores of millions of simple peasants who will be the innocent victims of our folly.
----------------
For further reading, to read complete debate in House of Lords on Act of Independence 1947 click the link below
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1947/jul/16/indian-independence-bill
For House of Common debates in July 1947, click here
https://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2021/07/what-mps-said-in-house-of-commons-when.html
More readings
اکتوبر7دا منحوس دن کیوں آیا؟ اسی کدوں تیک ویروے کریندے ہوئے شخصصیات اتے فوری ہوئے وقوعیاں بارے تبرّا کریندے رہواں گے۔۔۔۔عالمی تے مقامی حقیق...
