پنجاب ’’مَل مارو دیہاڑ‘‘ منایا گیا : Annexation of the Punjab Day

پنجاب ’’مَل مارو دیہاڑ‘‘ منایا گیا   : Annexation of the Punjab Day 

Was annexation a blessing in disguise?  or it shifted our society towards wars, Jihads by destroying ancient trade routes both of lands and water especially River Channel Trade on the one hand and by rejecting Persu-Punjabi continuity based on peace loving sufi tradition on the other hand. 

In defence of annexation some smart intellectuals tried Karl Marx too yet it is reality that Marx did not write in-depth about our region at all. Marx wrote about different issues yet in passing remarks he also some times pointed out about it. Can we use passing remarks as references? Russians and Indians used its writings in past and compiled all scattered writings   in a book form which was a bad taste. Max wrote about railway workers of England and in passing remarks he mentioned Train technology and its spread in our region yet some friends extracted Marx's support of annexation out of it. Their assumption is based on the thesis that capitalism is a progressive phenomenon and in this regard they smartly declared forces of annexation as Capitalists. You cannot find such a   simplistic form of modernity any where. Yet in order to justify annexation we did it. 

The meeting was First of its kind and Lhoryas first time observed The day of annexation of the Punjab as 29th March. Acooding to Qazi javed, a well known intellectual and writer, It is a beginning and by this we may able to unlearn many myths spread in our lands.  Read and enjoy, click here

http://www.wichaar.com/news/117/ARTICLE/30766/2014-04-04.html

اجہے سجن وی سن جیہڑے انگریزاں دی حمایت وچ کارل مارکس دی لکھتاں نوں چُک لیائے۔ انہاں آکھیا مارکس تے انگریزاں دے مَل نوں اوکھا پر اکھاں ودھن دا ورتارا دسیا سی۔ جد کہ مارکس کدی وی ساڈے بارے بھرویں گل کیتی ہی نہیں۔ مارکس نے ہمیشہ کوئی ہور مضمون لکھدے ہوئے Passing Remarks لئی ساڈے بارے جے اک ادھی گل کیتی وی ہے تے اس نوں اینج ورتیا نہیں جا سکدا۔ مارکس دیاں ایہناں وکھری وکھری گلاں نوں جوڑ کے روسیاں تے بھارتیاں ’’مارکس آن انڈیا‘‘ جہی نکمی کتاباں بنایاں۔ اک مثال برطانیہ وچ ٹرین دی آمد اتے ریلوے ورکراں بارے مارکس دا مضمون ہے جس وچ مارکس ریل نوں ماڈرن آکھدے ہوئے ساڈی تھاواں تے ٹرین دی آمداں بارے گل کردا ہے۔ پر ساڈے کول تے سیانیاں دا بھنڈار ہے پئی انہاں ایس وچوں انگریزاں دی حمایتاں کڈھ لیاں۔ 

We know 1857/Bhagat Singh etc but we don't remember 29th March...Annexation Day?

We know 1857/Bhagat Singh etc but we don't remember 29th March...Annexation Day?

British forces annexed Lhore Darbar at a day when people were celebrating Festival of Lights (Mela Chiraghan) in memory of jogi/sufi tradition of Madhu Lal Hussain. The selection of the day was in line with new policy of Garrison State in which there was no room for jogi/sufi traditions and Lhore Darbar.
Why this day is out of text and media? Why anti-colonial writers, groups and intellectuals largely ignored it? We have no knowledge about Shikarpur? a pre-colonial business center that used to attract traders from Kashmir, Kabul,Qallat, Shiraz and the Punjab, How Lhori Bandar or Lhori Dahro (near Thatta towards sea) and river channel trade played an important role in the informal unification is also an unexplored area.We donot know why Dost Muhammad Khan's son joined Sher Singh Attari walla army and fought against annexation at a crucial times in 1848. Why don't want to remember unprecedented resistance of Dewan Mul Raj of Multan. Our knowledge about Kashmir is misleading until we know bout last independent ruler of Kashmir, two Sheikh brothers, removed by British rulers in 1846 and their alliance with Lhore Darbar, We also have no knowledge of Sultan Muhammad Khan, elder brother of Dost Muhammad Khan and ruler of Peshur (now urduize as Peshawar just like Lhore, urduize as Lahore) who remained with Lhore Darbar. Resonance of resistance of wars fought between three bloody years (1846-9) is part of Royal literature but we are still ignorant. Our generations have no knowledge about it and that is why the day of annexation of Lhore Darbar was ignored. Had it included in the text during Raj, some people may explore it but, interestingly the day of annexation (29th March) was largely ignored both in India and Pakistan after independence. In the blue book (secret record) this whole unit (Sindh, Kashmir, Baluchistan, KhyberPK, Kabul,Qandhar and the Punjab) was one in the British eyes and they wanted to convert it into a Garrison region. For that purpose they did social engineering extensively, reinterpret history accordingly and created numerous prides and prejudices in line of twisted Frontier Forward Policy.  The day 29th March is important regarding our disconnection with our own lands largely based on infighting rather then exploring connectivity.  Colonial apologists and anti colonialists both ignored connectivity largely in either way. Nationalism and religion based interpretations were penned in the same line. No doubt, that the region was a bridge between various adjacent areas like China,Hindi heart land, Central Asia and West Asia and had its own internal connectivity too but it was largely shattered during Raj due to Garrison mindset. Do remember March 29th so that you can deconstruct misleading narratives.  

Listen Radio Show http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2017/03/radio-show-about-29-march-1849-day-when.html

Further Links
2016
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2016/03/remember-march-29-day-when-britain.html
2015 article
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2015/03/29th-march-day-when-britain-annexed.html
2014 Media Coverage: 165th Annexation of the Punjab day
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2014/03/media-coverage-165th-annexation-of.html
2012
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2012/03/remeber-29-march-1849a-day-when.html

Radio Show
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2016/03/listen-radio-show-history-of-punjab-its.html

قیدی دلیپ سنگھ، خزانہ لٹن والے شاہی لٹیرے(LADY FAGHIN) تے سیاستاں (دوجی لڑی) http://www.wichaar.com/news/127/ARTICLE/32605/2017-03-19.html

Why Pakistan & India are reluctant to remember 29th March 1849? Black Day of our history

 

Why Pakistan & India are reluctant to remember 29th March 1849? 

Black Day of our history 

It was day when the Punjab was annexed, a day when colonial British empire annexed Peshawar, Multan, Lhore but that day came into existence after gradual annexations i-e just after the death of the Lion, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Qallat (Baluchistan) was annexed that led to annexation of Qandhar & Kabul. In 1843, they annexed Sindh & destroyed the ancient port of Lhori Bandar that was not only connected with our rivers but was in deep sea too. It was a calculated attack on our river channel trade that was connected with various sea routes. Next in line were misleading agreements of 9th and 16th March 1846. A resident was installed in Lhore Darbar. On top of it, just to jeopardize our ancient links with  Tibetan Chinese  Kashmir was separated from the Punjab. Imamuddin ,the governor of Kashmir resisted yet colonizers had supported Gulab Singh. In three years, after bloody wars & conspiracies at 29th March 1849 they abolished the last independent Empire and it took 50 years to fulfill the dream. The story of Lhore Darbar is among the unheard cases of our history yet it was the case of final annexation, a case of 50 years of resistance. But why it could not get attention in the eyes of court historians & textbook writers of India & Pakistan? 

29 March, Black Day: The government of Lhore Darbar was ANNEXED

A day that proved the Black Day in the history of not only Punjabis but also jeopardized Sindhis, Balochs, Pukhtoons & Kashmiris though Social engineering of Sikhs, Hindus & Muslims in our lands. At 29 March 1849, EIC & British royalty had completed annexation of Hind Sindh after destroying the last independent Empire after 50 years of conspires & the bloody wars. Selectors defamed it as Sikh Empire but in reality, it had large presence of various nationalities & different religious communities of our lands.Under Divide & Rule policy, Court historians penned the concocted history & played with differences so communities could not joined against Annexation & social engineering and always looked British as Saviors. Are we ready to deconstruct it after 172 years?   

Remember 29th March 

Two part article written in 2012

Our anti-Punjab clamour

A 2014 event

The meeting was First of its kind and Lhoryas first time observed The day of annexation of the Punjab as 29th March. Acooding to Qazi javed, a well known intellectual and writer, It is a beginning and by this we may able to unlearn many myths spread in our lands.

An article written in 2015

A Day when Britain annexed The Punjab 166 years back and jeopardized the whole region

A radio program of 2016

History of the Punjab & Its surroundings Open the colonial knot & Deconstruct misleading History

A post of 2017

We know 1857/Bhagat Singh etc but we don't remember 29th March...Annexation Day?

Lok Lhar program 2017

Radio Show about 29 March 1849--A Day when the Punjab was annexed by British forces 167 years back

Radio Program of 2019

Why to know about March 29? Why this colonial narrative is still there after independence? Radio Show

پنجاب کی تاریخ کو مسخ کرنا اور 29 مارچ کا دن۔

تحریر:

Aamir Riaz TuTu

دنیا بھر میں پھیلے 20 کروڑ سے زیادہ پنجابیوں کے لیے ہی نہیں بلکہ ڈیڑھ ارب سے زیادہ جنوبی ایشیائی باشندوں کے لیے 29 مارچ کا دن بہت اہمیت کا حامل ہے۔ یہ وہ دن ہے جب برصغیر کی آخری دیسی ریاست کو گورے حکمرانوں نے سر نگوں کیا۔ وہ دیسی ریاست جس کا نام ’’لہور دربار‘‘ تھا اور جو پورے 50 برس کشمیر سے فاٹا تک برقرار رہی۔ اس ریاست کا ساتھ دینے والوں میں پنجابی’ پٹھان مسلمان بھی تھے’ جٹ’ راجپوت’ ارائیں اور گجر بھی’ پوربیوں کی بٹالین بھی اور یورپی و امریکی فوجی بھی۔ مگر انگریزوں اور ان کے ہمنوا لکھاریوں نے یہی جھوٹ پھیلایا کہ لہور دربار کی حکومت تو سکھوں کی بادشاہی تھی۔ ہشیار انگریز دانشوروں نے سکھ مسلم اور پنجابی’ غیر پنجابی تضاد کو خوب استعمال کیا اور اس کے تحت مطلبی تاریخ لکھوائی۔ اس مطلبی تاریخ کو کون آگے بڑھا رہا ہے ؟یہ اپنی جگہ عجب داستان الم ہے۔ افغانستان کے دوست محمد خان کا بھائی سلطان محمد تو آخر تک لہور دربار کا سجن رہا جبکہ باجوڑ’ خیبر اور دیر کے خان لہور دربار کے ساتھ رہے۔ ایک مہم میں قصور کے خان مہاراجہ کے ساتھ لڑے مگر بعد میں وہ تادیر مہاراجہ کے ہمرکاب رہے۔ کشمیر کی مہم میں تو یہ خان صاحب مہاراجہ کی طرف سے بڑی بے جگری سے لڑے۔لاہور کے فقیر خاندان بارے تو ہم سب جانتے ہی ہیں مگر امرتسر کے میں غوثا’ ملتان کے سانول مل اور مول راج ہوں یا کشمیر کے شیخ برادران یہ سب لہور دربار کے ساتھ مل کر انگریزوں سے برسرپیکار رہے۔نور خان کا ذکر تو محمد شاہ کی مشہور رزمیہ ’’جنگ ہند پنجاب‘‘ میں محفوظ ہے جو پنجاب پر قبضہ کے بعد لکھی گئی۔ مگر ہمیں یہی سبق پڑھایا گیا کہ لہور دربار تو سکھوں کی بادشاہی تھی۔ -

شاہ شجاع سمیت احمد شاہ ابدالی کے تینوں پوتوں کو پناہ و جاگیریں دینے والے لہور دربار کو گرانے کے لیے انگریزوں کو تین خوفناک جنگوں سے گزرنا پڑا۔ گجرات کے قریب چیلیانوالہ کے مقام پر جو خوفناک لڑائی ہوئی اس میں پنجابیوں کے ہمراہ دوست محمد خان کا بیٹا بھی انگریزوں کے مخالف لڑا۔ اس جنگ کی بڑی یادگار چیلیانوالہ کا ’’گورا قبرستان ‘‘ہے۔ فیصل آباد کے میجر معین باری نے چلیانوالہ پر باکمال کتاب چھاپ رکھی ہے۔ ان جنگوں میں حصہ لینے والے کپتان کنگھم نے جب کتاب میں اعتراف کیا کہ یہ جنگیں سازشوں سے جیتیں گئی تھیں تو انگریزوں نے اس کتاب پر پابندی لگا دی تھی۔ مگر ہمارے بچوں کو یہ تاریخ نہیں پڑھائی جاتی۔ انگریز دانشوروں نے مسلمانوں کو ’’سکھا شاہی‘‘ اور سکھوں کو ’’مسلم حملہ آوروں‘‘ کی اصطلاحیں دیں تاکہ یہ آپس میں دست و گریباں ہی رہیں۔ لہور دربار کی 90 فی صد آبادی تو ان دونوں مذاہب کے ماننے والوں پر مشتمل تھی کہ ان میں اختلافات ایجنڈے کا خصوصی حصہ رہا۔ مسلم اور سکھ بنیاد پرست و انتہاپسند گروہ آج بھی اُسی انگریز پالیسی کے اسیر ہیں۔ 27 جون 1839 وہ دن تھا جب 1799 سے برسراقتدار گوجرانوالہ کے مہاراجہ رنجیت سنگھ کا انتقال ہوگیا۔ ایک سال کے بعد قلات(بلوچستان)’ چار سال کے بعد سندھ’ سات سال کے بعد کشمیر اور 10 سال کے بعد پنجاب بشمول فاٹا پر انگریز کا قبضہ ہوگیا۔ پرنسپ’ دیبی پرشاد’ برائن ہیوگل’ سٹین بیچ’ گاڈنر’ کپتان کنگھم’ گنیش داس’ شہامت علی سمیت لاتعداد لکھاریوں نے 1850 تک لہوردربار بارے بہت سی کتب لکھیں۔ ان کتب کو پڑھنے سے ہمیں انگریزوں سے پہلے کے سیاسی’ سماجی حالات بارے جاننے میں مدد ملتی ہے۔ اس دور میں ہمارے خطوں میں سب سے بڑی زبان فارسی تھی اور فارسی کا ہمارے خطہ کی مادری زبانوں سے گہرا رشتہ بھی تھا۔ خدا بھلا کرے اگروال صاحب کا جن کی وجہ سے گنیش داس کی فارسی میں لہور دربار پر لکھی کتاب ’’چار باغ پنجاب‘‘ پنجابی و انگریزی میں ترجمہ ہوگئی۔ مقصود ثاقب نے اسے شاہ مکھی میں بھی چھاپ کر لاہور کی لاج رکھ لی ۔ مگر تاحال ہمارے خطہ بارے کتنی ہی فارسی کتب ترجمہ نہیں کروائی گئیں۔ لہور دربار پر قبضہ کے بعد انگریزوں نے مرحلہ وار انداز میں فارسی کو ختم کرنے کی مہم شروع کی۔ 1865 کے بعد پنجاب بشمول پشاور’ کشمیر اور قلات میں اُردو کا نفاذ فارسی کو ختم کرنے کی مہم کا خاص حصہ تھا۔ اس تاریخ کو ہمارے ہاں جان بوجھ کر چھپایا جاتا رہا ہے کہ پاکستان’ بنگلہ دیش اور بھارت کی گذشتہ ہزار سال کی تاریخ فارسی اور ترکی زبانوں ہی میں محفوظ ہے۔ 29 مارچ کا دن اس لیے اہم ہے کہ یہ ہمیں اپنی تاریخ کو جاننے کی ترغیب دیتا ہے۔ ایک مثال بادشاہی مسجد کے میناروں کے شہید ہونے کی ہے جو 1839 کے زلزلے کے بعد اپنی اصلی حالت میں نہیں رہے تھے۔ اس زمانے میں آنے والے زلزلوں کے ریکارڈ کے حوالہ جات زلزلوں کے حوالوں سے موجود بین الاقوامی ویب سائٹ پر بھی دیکھے جاسکتے ہیں۔ 1873 کا گیزیٹر بھی 1839 میں بادشاہی مسجد کے میناروں کے زلزلہ کے بعد شہید ہونے کی گواہی دیتا ہے۔ مگر بہت سے لکھاریوں نے میناروں کے شہید ہونے کا الزام سکھوں پر دھردیا۔ یہ لکھا گیا کہ راجہ جموں گلاب سنگھ کے سپاہی توپیں لے کر شاہی مسجد کے میناروں پر چڑھ گئے تاکہ شاہی قلعہ کے اندر گولے برسا سکیں۔ آپ میں سے جس نے بھی بادشاہی مسجد کے میناروں کی سیڑھیاں دیکھی ہیں وہ با آسانی اس جھوٹ کو سمجھ سکتے ہیں۔ ان تنگ سیڑھیوں میں سے تو پیں لے جانا تو دور کی بات’ وہاں سے تو دو انسان اکٹھے بھی نہیں جاسکتے۔ اگر توپیں ہی لے جائی گئیں تھیں تو پھر مسجد کے پچھلے مینار گرانے کی تو ضرورت نہ تھی کیونکہ وہ تو قلعہ کی طرف نہیں تھے۔ اسی طرح 1827 کے زلزلے میں لاہور کی بہت سی تاریخی عمارتوں کو نقصان پہنچا تھا۔ زلزلوں سے ہوئے ان نقصانات کو بھی سکھوں کے کھاتے ڈال دیا گیا۔ حقیقت حال یہ ہے کہ لہور دربار کی حکومت میں مسلمانوں کا تناسب 70 فی صد سے بھی زیادہ تھا۔ اگر مہاراجہ مسلمانوں کا دشمن ہوتا تو اس کی حکومت 3 سال بھی نہ چل سکتی۔ اسی طرح سکھوں کو مسلمانوں سے متنفر کرنے کے لیے احمد شاہ ابدالی کے حملوں اور میر منو کے دَور کے واقعات کو مرچ مصالحہ لگا کر پیش کیا گیا۔ احمد شاہ ابدالی اور میر منو تو مسلمانوں اور پٹھانوں کے ساتھ بھی لڑتے رہے تھے مگر سکھوں کو یہ باتیں نہ بتائی گئیں۔یہ سب جیمس مل کی تقلید تھی۔ جو سکول سسٹم ہمارے خطوں میں انگریزوں نے بنایا اس میں مادری زبانوں یعنی پشتو’ بلوچی’ براہوی اور پنجابی کو دیس نکالا دیاگیا تھا تو دوسری طرف ان کی تیار کردہ نصابی کتب میں صوفیا اور بھگتوں کی تعلیمات شامل ہی نہ تھیں۔ 1854 کے ووڈزڈسپیچ (Woods Despatch) سے لے کر جی ڈبلیو لائیٹنر کی 1882 کی تعلیمی رپورٹ تک بہت سے انگریز تھے جنھوں نے ان اقدامات کی مخالفت کی۔ اس تعلیمی بندوبست کی خوبیوں اور گھاٹوں پر ہم نے تاحال کچھ کام نہیں کیا اور اس کا الزام انگریزوں پر قطعاً نہیں ڈالا جا سکتا۔ لائیٹنر نے تو اپنی شہرہ آفاق کتاب ’’پنجاب میں دیسی تعلیم‘‘ میں نہ صرف پنجابی زبان کے چھ رسم الخطوں کا ذکر کیا ہے بلکہ پنجابی’ فارسی سلسلوں کی طرف بھی توجہ دلائی ہے۔ مگر برٹش انتظامیہ نے بوجوہ ان باتوں کو ضروری نہ گردانا۔ دیکھا جائے تو فارسی نے اس خطہ کو جوڑا ہوا تھا جو ایک طرف وسط ایشیائی و ایران تک جاتا تھا تو دوسری طرف کشمیر تک مگر اس جڑت کو توڑنا نو آبادیاتی مفادات کا بڑا مقصد ٹھہرا۔ یہ سب تو گورے حکمرانوں کے کارنامے تھے مگر ہم نے 68 سالوں میں اسی سلسلہ کو کیوں جاری رکھا؟ یہ ہے وہ سوال جس کو آج ہم نے دوبارہ سے دیکھنا ہے۔ 29مارچ کا دن اس کھوج کی طرف رخ کرنے ہی سے عبارت ہے۔

مذہبوں’ فرقوں’ زبانوں اور رسم الخطوں سے خوب کھیلا گیا۔ لہور دربار میں مسلمانوں کے بعد عددی اعتبار سے دوسرا بڑا مذہبی گروہ سکھ تھے۔ انگریزوں نے پہلے کشمیر کو لہور دربار سے الگ کیا اور 1850 کی دہائی کے اولین سالوں میں ستلج پار سے دلی تک کا علاقہ پنجاب میں شامل کردیا۔ اب پنجاب میں دوسرا بڑا مذہبی گروہ سکھوں کی بجائے ہندو بن گئے۔ سکھوں کو تو تادیر اس کی سمجھ ہی نہ آئی۔1941کی مردم شماری کے مطابق بھی پنجاب میں ہندو 22فی صد جبکہ سکھ 15فیصد تھے۔ ان اعدادو شمار سے اکھاڑ بچھاڑ کا اندازہ آپ خود لگا سکتے ہیں۔ 29 مارچ کا دن ہمیں اس سماجی اتھل پتھل یعنی سوشل انجینئرنگ کی یادلاتا ہے جس سے ہمارے بچوں کا آگاہ ہونا ضروری ہے۔ یہ مسئلہ محض پنجاب کا نہیں بلکہ خیبر پی کے’ بلوچستان اور سندھ کا بھی ہے اور مشرقی پنجاب اور کشمیروگلگت بلتستان کا بھی۔ افسوس ہمارا باخبر اور مقتدر میڈیا بھی 29 مارچ کے دن کی اہمیت سے تاحال ناآشنا ہے۔ ہم جانتے یا ناجانتے ہوئے سکھ مسلم اور پنجابی غیر پنجابی تضادات کے مہلک اثرات کو سمجھنے سے قاصر ہیں۔ مذہبی بنیاد پرست اور انتہا پسند تو انہی تضادات کو استعمال کر رہے ہیں مگر ترقی پسند اور لبرل دانشور بھی اسی مطلبی تاریخ کے اسیر نظر آتے ہیں۔ آج اگر ہماری یونیورسٹیاں اور میڈیا اس بارے غور کریں تو کوئی وجہ نہیں ہم اپنی تاریخ سے آگاہی حاصل کرنے کی طرف سکیں۔ کیا آپ یونیورسٹیوں میں پنجاب سٹیڈیز کے نام سے شعبہ جات نہیں بناسکتے؟ کیا آپ تاریخ ' سماجیات’ سیاسیات اور جغرافیہ کے شعبہ جات میں ایم فل’ ایم اے اور پی ایچ ڈی کے لیے پنجاب کی تاریخ و ثقافت کے حوالہ سے مقالے تجویز نہیں کر سکتے؟ آجا کر ہمیں 1857 جیسے واقعات ہی یاد رہتے ہیں جنھیں 1948 کے بعد بھارتی قوم پرستی کا جزو لاینفک بنالیا گیاحالانکہ خود نہرو اس کے حق میں نہیں تھے۔ ہندو بنیاد پرست ساور کر وہ پہلا شخص تھا جس نے 1857 کو جنگ آزادی کہاتھا اور حوالہ اس کا ہندو قوم پرستی تھی۔ انگریز اگر 29 مارچ کو یاد نہیں رکھنا چاہتے تھے وہ تو سمجھ آتا ہے مگر ہم آخر کیوں تاحال انگریزی پالیسیوں کے اسیر ہیں؟ ہم اپنے بچوں کو بابا فرید’ بابا نانک’ مادھو لال حسین’ بابابلھے شاہ’ وارث شاہ’ بابافرید’ میاں محمد بخش کے متعلق نہیں بتانا چاہتے۔ ان باکمال بزرگوں کے لازوال کلام کو نصاب کا حصہ نہیں بنایا جاتا۔ انگریزی کی 8 ویں کی کتاب میں میلہ چراغاں پر سبق شامل ہوتا تھا مگر اب وہ بھی نکال دیا گیا ہے۔ حسن نظامی کی پنجابیوں کے خلاف لکھی تحریروں کو تونصابی کتب میں ہشیاری سے شامل کیا جاتا ہے مگر امرتا پریتم کی ’’اج آکھاں وارث شاہ نوں۔۔۔ کھتے قبراں وچوں بول‘‘ کو نصابی کتابوں میں شامل کرنا گناہ عظیم ہے۔ ایک زمانہ میں تیسری سے 8 ویں جماعت تک ہر ضلع کی الگ الگ کتب چھپتی تھیں جو کسی حد تک طالب علم کا اپنی دھرتی سے تعلق جوڑتی تھیں۔ مگر اب ان کتب کو چھاپنابھی بند کر دیا گیا ہے۔ اگر ہمارے بچوں کو یہی معلوم نہ ہو گا کہ انگریزوں کے قبضہ سے قبل پنجابی و سیب کیا تھاتو وہ احساس کمتری کا شکار رہیں گے۔ بس 69 سالوں سے اس احساس محرومی کو بڑھاوا دیا جاتا رہا ہے جس کا حقیقت سے کوئی تعلق نہیں۔ بس اس لیے 29 مارچ کے دن کو یاد رکھنا ہم سب پر لازم ہے۔

Annexation of the Punjab: playing with religion & ethnicity

Annexation of the Punjab: playing with religion & ethnicity

Updated at 178th year of annexation  1849-2026

The Black Day, not only for the Punjabis and surrounding people but it was a black day for all South Asians. After the annexation of Lhore Darbar Lord Dalhousie wrote a letter to Queen and said that we had completed annexation of India yet in the last 78 years we South Asians remain reluctant to remember it? Textbooks in India, Pakistan as well as Bangladesh hardly mention that Day, what to talk about a lesson. The annexed us at a day when people were celebrating Mela Charaghan at the tomb of Mhdolal Hussain. 

Why this chapter is neither in textbooks nor so-called intellectuals wrote about it? From 1846 till 1849 this region fought three fights against Royal Bengal Army of East India Company. Fight @ Chilianwala (near Gujrat, Punjab) was very horrible for English as they lost 2000 soldiers . it was the Punjab's government Lhore Darbar who resisted for 50 years ( from 1799 to 1849). read the story of annexation

http://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2013-03-30&edition=LHR&id=258419_78521334

answer to ayaz ameer article regarding Punjab

As the author have poor command on history of the Punjab so i will not comment on it yet his point of view regarding liberal progressive history of 20th century Punjab looks even more problematic. In colonial times there were two type of struggle and it was Punjab who had both examples. Ghadar party and Unionist party, both were secular, it was the Punjab who produce Iqbal and Faiz and if the author read Allah bad address then he should join both Allahabad address and august 11 speech, both r examples of liberal, progressive appeal. After partition, it was Mian Iftiqar u din of the Punjab who resigned as Minister for Muhajreen on a principled stand. He advised Liaqat Ali Khan to stop playing interest game regarding land and property left by Hindu and Sikhs. In 1949 it was Ghulam Muhammad of Mochi Gate who was major hindrance in making Objective resolution, full part of constitution. It was Shurawrdy and Mamdoot who created first opposition party, jinnah awami league. For Bengali issue responsibility lied on the nexus of civil military bureaucracy, who had their own institutional interests? They were/are neither Punjabi nor pulkhtoon but strictly alien to their institutional or personal interests. They used Urdu and Islam to construct centralist authoritarian state. 
Putting all the blame onto Punjabis is a post 1971 syndrome of establishment. From 1947 till 1971, Pakistani pro centralist establishment remained busy in managing with Bengali majority while after 1971; they have a desire to weak or break remaining 4 provinces, especially the Punjab, so that no one can challenge centralist forces. Politicians preempted it and then makers of 1973 constitution included a clause which is still vital regarding provincial autonomy. Even zia once told that i want to divide Pakistan into 100 provinces. From last 30 years it is in the interest of the Punjab to build Kalla bagh dam yet Post 1971 Pakistani establishment is not ready to see Punjab independent in electricity production. In a meeting Khan abdul wali khan himself told at kisan hall, lhore, how could me and pleejo stopped kala bagh dam construction? It was zia who was not interested. If the theory of 'supremacy of Punjabis' is true then, why they failed to build kala bagh dam? Anyway, let us see first half of 20th century Punjab first.
From 19th century till today Punjab remained victim of Frontier Forward Policy. In 1808, Metcalf came to lhore to engage Punjab government. It was his desire, as written in his report, that Punjab would help them in British military campaign in Afghanistan and beyond. They needed a safe passage from Lhore to Turkham yet mharaja of punjab refused three times. To destabilize Punjab govt it was Britishers who sponsored a jihad in the leadership of a man from braille in 1826-31. A lashkar was build in central India and according to Francis Robinson, the British Governor of Bengal allowed Syed Ahmad Shaheed and co to collect funds from bazaars and with the help of imperial power Jihadis started their journey from Deli via Rajistan and after crossing Sind and Baluchistan moved toward peshawar via afghan frontier. Just imagine at that time Britishers, Afghan Government and Jihadis all were united against the Punjab but everyone knew that Punjabis did not support orthodox Islam. It was Royal Bengal Army who fought three wars against the Punjab. it is to be remembered that RBA was consisted of UP, bihar, Maharashter and Bengal people. Annexation of the Punjab was a leap forward in Frontier Forward Policy (FFP). After annexation of the Punjab, Britishers wanted to build an army from Punjab so that they could capture historic old trade route, the silk route. To fulfill that purpose they tried to convert Trade and agro-based Punjab economy into a garrison economy. Before annexation of the Punjab britishers never used the term marshal races yet after annexation their intellectuals extensively used the term marshal races for punjabis who lived between jehlum and attock. Britishers wanted to recruit them. In early 1850s they not only had a policy to reduce RBA but also allocated huge budget for the devopment in newly annexed Punjab. 1857 so-called war of independence was a reaction aginest new policy. Reaction of RBA sepoys has resemblance with now a days jihadis who suddenly turned anti-america when US stopped funding of afghan jihad. After successful ambella campaign of 1862 near Swat, British forces had ample control over the plains as well as mountains of the Punjab. To boast garrison economy they build canal colonies and introduced schemes like cow feeding and horse breeding who served garrison economy in multiple ways. It was a demographic as well as economic shift in the Punjab. Right from that day a battle is being fought within Punjab between garrison economy and Others. After annexation of Punjab new war front was Afghanistan and beyond. Now they wanted to recruit an army from Punjabi areas adjacent to afghan frontier. To appease Punjabis, under the instruction of Lawrence, they started massive construction in Lhore, introduce Railways, construct buildings and formed schools in specific areas. Under two prone strategies they build canal system to feed and recruit army. They distributed lands among loyalists who were subservient to garrison economy. They followed Maharaja and shifted Northern Command Head Quarter to Rawapindi. Raza abdi recorded a story of a british plan to build a huge railway junction between Sukkar and Larkano with the name Ruk in 1879. They had plans to build a railway line via kandhar to turkey though Iran. In 1880s britishers won anglo-afghan wars. They were ready to fight with Tsar directly if required. Before 1894 Durand Line divide, the Imperial power was interested to capture Old SR yet in late 19th century rise of Germany in Europe halted imperial designs to capture SR. Under the threat of Germany, Britishers and Tsar did Durand Line agreement. Hot wars ended temp rarely at Pak-Afghan front and it was beginning of a Cold war yet the Punjab remained hub of activity even in the cold war. According to abdi, RUK station completed in 1896 yet till that time britishers had abandoned the project. One end of durand line was near turkham while it ended at wahkhan corridor, neck of old trade route. Under durand line agreement, britishers carved tribal area and used it as buffer zone. Ike Marsha race thesis they with help of intellectuals like Olaf Cairo, proposed another flawed thesis. They said that pathans or tribal remained independent and no one ever annexed them. In reality, Mughals and mharaja ranjeet singh ruled them yet many pukhtoon nationalists trapped in new thesis under the compulsion of nationalism. After Durand line agreement britishers divided the punjab in 1901, carved six punjabi districts and made NWFP. In 1903 a big durbar was arranged in DELLI . Now britishers were ready to move their capital. In 1911 deli was carved from punjab and declared new capital. These were fall outs of durand line agreement on punjab. In 1916, Lukhnow pact,purposed weight age formula which reduced muslim majorities in bengal and punjab. People like alma iqbal, c r das, hakim ajmal khan and mian shafi registered their opposition. From 1919 till 1937 punjabis not only fought against luchnow pact but also under mian fazl e hussain strengthen punjabis to oppose congress. in 1937 elections it were both the punjab and bengal who did not vote for congress. 
So if u scan 20th century, punjabis never voted in favor of fundamentalists. in 1970punjabis voted for bhutto and they were right. during zia time punjabis remains loyal to ppp , accepted prisons yet civil military establishment tried their best to root out ppp from punjab. They supported nawaz sharief yet in 2006 nawaz sharief signed CoD with ppp which threatened establishment. Lawyer movement or restoration of judges issue once again divided both ppp and nawas yet both parties remained committed not to call army in power game. Due to this establishment produced imran khan yet punjabis r still either with ppp and nawaz. In his article ayaz tried to save civil military establishment and tries to putt all blame on to punjab which is problematic
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

-----Original Message-----
From: Zubair Murshed <Zubair.Murshed@undp.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:26:17 
To: <newline2100@yahoo.co.uk>; <javedkaemail@yahoo.com>
Cc: <tariq.tariq50@gmail.com>; <salman258@gmail.com>; <wahed@rocketmail.com>; <zafar@lums.edu.pk>; <fbari@osipak.org>; <khurshid_40@yahoo.com>; <syedi@sbcglobal.net>; <aamirriaz@hotmail.com>; <kashifbokhari@live.com>; <jaagpkpk@yahoo.com>; <eric_rahim@yahoo.com>; <purcpluslhr@yahoo.com>; <iqbutt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pakistan's Punjab Problem- Ayaz Amir

 
Pakistan's Punjab problem 
 
 
Ayaz Amir <http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?ID=9&amp;URL=Ayaz%20Amir> Friday, February 03, 2012 
 

Punjab is more than half of Pakistan, in politics, culture and industry. Whether anyone likes it or not, the task of governing Pakistan, of getting Pakistan right, falls heaviest upon the land of the five rivers (now three after the Indus Basin Waters Treaty).Call this the burden of geography or the curse of history.

History, however, left Punjab unprepared for the task of leading Pakistan. Punjab had a long tradition in poetry, literature and culture. But the one tradition it did not have, or did not possess in abundance, was that of rulership. In all of recorded history, from Alexander to the present, who are the Punjabi rulers that we know of?

In Alexander's time Porus whose kingdom straddled the River Jhelum, the battle between him and the Greeks commemorated in legend. Then after a gap of two thousand years just one name: Maharaja Ranjit Singh. A few Punjabi politicians attained prominence under the British: Sir Fazal-e-Hussain, Sikander Hayat of Wah and Khizr Hayat Tiwana. And then, after the horrors of Partition, the sorry lot whose contribution has been second to none in mismanaging the affairs of the new republic.

Our historical memories were those of the Muslim conquest of India. Our heroes were Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghaur, Babar and Akbar. But these were transnational heroes, from beyond the high mountains separating Hindustan from the lands to the west, of little use to us, except as flickering memories, when Pakistan came into being and we were very much on our own, having to manage things ourselves.

In any case, there were no infidels to fight and subjugate. There were no more battles of Panipat to be fought except with our own problems and, in many instances, our own demons.

The choice before the new state of Pakistan was either to step into the modern age or seek comfort in the past. With more visionary leaders Pakistan could have reconciled Muslim nationhood, the basis of Pakistan, with the demands of modernism. But this was not to be.

What constituted the Pakistani leadership? (1) Conservative Punjabi landlords instinctively averse to anything calculated to upset the established order of things; and (2) the Urdu-speaking elite migrating from India which could not afford to forget or downplay the passions behind the demand for Pakistan for that would have meant laying open to question the wisdom of their great pilgrimage. So we remained stuck in the past and this had fatal consequences with which we are still grappling today.

The two-nation theory was great for the quest of achieving Pakistan. Indeed, it was a necessity in that the demand for Pakistan dictated the emphasis on Muslim separateness. But once Pakistan was achieved, and the boundaries of the new state were fixed on the map, history should have moved on. Once Pakistan was achieved the necessity was no longer there to keep raising the banner of Islam. In a Muslim-majority country where the last thing under threat was Islam, it was pointless to keep proclaiming that Pakistan was a fortress of Islam. It just wasn't necessary.

Jinnah was the first to recognise this. Hence his great speech of August 11, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly in which he spelled out a creed of secularism for the new state. In so doing he was not repudiating the tenets of the Pakistan movements but he was certainly modifying some of the messianic zeal which had animated that movement.

Both the Congress as personified by Gandhi and the Muslim League led by Jinnah had stoked the fires of religion in order to advance their political ends. In Nirad Chaudri's Autobiography of an Unknown Indian there is a haunting passage about where, in times to come, the descent of politics into religion would lead. But it is remarkable that once Partition was a done deed and freedom was achieved for India and Pakistan, Gandhi's was the strongest voice raised in India for Hindu-Muslim tolerance and on this side of the divide Jinnah the lone voice raised for secular tolerance.

But Jinnah was ahead of his time. And most of the Muslim League members of the Constituent Assembly could not understand what he was saying. Jinnah would never have countenanced the Objectives Resolution. We can't seem to get out of its mesmerising orbit.

For Punjab Partition brought other consequences too. Punjab had not a single past but two. That of its Muslim conquerors, Mahmud and the Mughals and so on, which was turned into a philosophy and made the basis of Pakistan by the poet Iqbal; and that of its indigenous culture as represented by Waris Shah, Bulley Shah, Guru Nanak and Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Which past was it to accept? The virtues of which past was it to proclaim? Here was a dilemma.

Punjab post-1947 was no longer an Afghan or Turkish colony. It was the most powerful portion of a new republic and running that republic, and doing it well, depended heavily upon the kind of performance Punjab delivered. Jinnah's Aug 11 vision might have implied a tolerant, all-including view of the past. But the requirements of the Pakistan movement, and the horrors of Partition whose memory was still fresh, dictated a heavy emphasis on the theme of Pakistan being a fortress of Islam. This was enshrined later in what we know as the ideology of Pakistan, a source of endless befuddlement and confusion.

For Punjab this meant an erasure of memory. We were the inheritors of Mahmud and Babar, our spiritual axis went all the way from the land of Hejaz to the mountains of Afghanistan and beyond, but it had little to do with the cultural tradition honed over the centuries in the historic doabs (the land between two rivers) of Punjab.

It would not have mattered if this selectivity had no practical consequences. But it did. The choice our part of Punjab made led to a closing of its mind, a shrinking of its mental horizons. Punjab should have been large-minded and been in the forefront of the struggle for a modern Pakistan, its mind liberated from myths and shibboleths. Where Punjab should have led the rest of Pakistan would have followed.

Our creed should have been not the ideology of Pakistan as we know it but the ideology of progress. We should have been a beacon of light not only for our own selves but for the nations to our west. India should have looked upon our progress and enlightenment with envy and admiration. Instead of being a bedfellow of the military and the bureaucracy the Punjabi elite should have sought a partnership with the political elite of East Pakistan.

But these are the might-have-beens of history. Instead of being an engine of progress Punjab became a redoubt of reaction and intolerance. The seeds of East Pakistan secession were planted not in Bengal but Punjab. The true fathers of Bangladeshi independence are the politicians, mandarins and generals of Punjab.

From the Objectives Resolution to the ideology of Pakistan, from there to Ziaul Haq's Islam, and from jihad to the nightmares now haunting us, this is the route we have traversed. One reason for this is the closing of the Punjabi mind and since Punjab was in the driver's seat what it did or failed to do had consequences for the rest of Pakistan. In the field of intellect, or what passes for it with us, Punjab does service for the rest of Pakistan. GHQ's obsessions are Punjabi obsessions.

Are we for the liberation of Pakistan, the sweeping away of the cobwebs which are such a screen over its eyes? Then first of all must be liberated the Punjabi mind. So let us think again and reconstruct the Punjabi pantheon.

In all of history who are the true heroes of Punjab? I hazard a few names: Waris Shah, Bulley Shah, Khawaja Ghulam Farid (for Seraikis are part of Punjab too), Ali Hajveri, Guru Nanak, Iqbal, Munir Niazi (yes, we should include him), Kundan Lal Saigal and (all right) Noor Jahan too. Let us honour their memory. (Bhagat Singh Shaheed was hanged in Camp Jail, Lahore. Will there come a day when Shadman Colony is named after him?)

Let us then hope that from the mental depths Punjab is in today there is a miraculous recovery. That will be the day Pakistan comes into its own.



Email: winlust@yahoo.com

Our anti-Punjab clamour — 1 —Aamir Riaz Daily Times March 13, 2012

Our anti-Punjab clamour — 1 —Aamir Riaz
Daily Times March 13, 2012
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\03\13\story_13-3-2012_pg3_3

Putting all the blame on Punjabis is a post-1971 syndrome. From 1947 till 1971, the pro-centralist Pakistani establishment remained busy in managing the Bengali majority, while after 1971 they had a desire to weaken the remaining four provinces, especially the Punjab, so that no one could challenge the centralist forces

These days Punjab is under discussion. The resonance of an anti-Punjab clamour was heard recently even in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, regarding Balochistan. Here I need to write about the Punjab and its liberal-progressive history of the 20th century, which looks problematic.

In colonial times, there were two types of struggles and it was the Punjab that had both examples: the Ghaddar Party and the Unionist Party, both secular. It was the Punjab that produced Iqbal and Faiz, and if our intellectuals re-read the Allahabad address, they will realize that the Allahabad address 1930 and the August 11, 1947 speech are both examples of a liberal, progressive appeal. After partition, it was Mian Iftikhar-ud-din of the Punjab who resigned as Minister for Muhajreen (Refugees) on a principled stand, advising Liaqat Ali Khan to stop playing vested interest games regarding land and property left behind by Hindus and Sikhs. In 1949, it was Ghulam Muhammad of Mochi Gate, Lahore, who was the major hindrance in making the Objectives Resolution a full part of the constitution. It was Suhrawardy and Mamdot who created the first opposition party, the Jinnah Awami League. For the Bengali issue, responsibility was laid on the nexus of the civil-military bureaucracy, which had their own institutional interests. They were/are neither Punjabi nor Pakhtun but strictly wedded to their institutional or personal interests. They used Urdu and Islam to construct a centralist authoritarian state.

Putting all the blame on Punjabis is a post-1971 syndrome. From 1947 till 1971, the pro-centralist Pakistani establishment remained busy in managing the Bengali majority, while after 1971 they had a desire to weaken the remaining four provinces, especially the Punjab, so that no one could challenge the centralist forces. Politicians pre-empted it, and then the makers of the 1973 constitution included a clause that is still vital regarding provincial autonomy. Even General Zia once said that he wanted to divide Pakistan into 100 provinces. For the last 30 years it is in the interests of Punjab to build Kalabagh Dam (KBD). In a meeting, Khan Abdul Wali himself had said that he alone could not have stopped the construction of the KBD. It was General Zia who was not interested. If the theory of ‘supremacy of Punjabis’ is true, then why had they failed to build KBD?

Anyway, let us look at the first half of the 20th century in Punjab first. From the 19th century till today, Punjab remained victim of the Frontier Forward Policy (FFP). In 1808, Metcalf came to Lahore to engage the Punjab government. It was his desire, as written in his report, that Punjab would help them in the British military campaign in Afghanistan and beyond. They needed a safe passage from Lahore to Torkham, yet the then maharaja of Punjab refused three times. To destabilise the Punjab government, the British sponsored a jihad in the leadership of a man from Bareli from 1836-1831. A lashkar was raised in central India, and according to Francis Robinson, the British Governor of Bengal allowed Syed Ahmad Shaheed and company to collect funds from the bazaar. It is a hard fact that jihadists with the help of the imperial power started their journey from Delhi via Rajasthan, and after crossing Sindh and Balochistan, moved toward Peshawar via the Afghan frontier. Just imagine: at that time the British and Afghan government and jihadists all were united against Punjab, but everyone knew that Punjabis did not support orthodox Islam. The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, tries to repeat history vis-à-vis Balochistan.

It was the Royal Bengal Army (RBA) that fought three wars against the Punjab. It is to be remembered that the RBA consisted of soldiers from UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and Bengal. Annexation of the Punjab was a leap forward in the process of FFP. After annexation of the Punjab, the British wanted to build an army from Punjab so that they could capture the historic old trade link, the Silk Route. To fulfil that purpose, they tried to convert the trade and agro-based Punjab economy into a garrison economy. Before annexation of the Punjab, the British had never used the term martial races, yet after annexation their intellectuals extensively used the term martial races for Punjabis who lived between Jhelum and Attock. The British wanted to recruit them. In the early 1850s they not only had a policy to reduce the RBA but also allocated a huge budget for the development of an army from newly annexed Punjab. In 1857 the war of independence was a reaction against the new policy. The reaction of the RBA sepoys has some resemblance with the jihadists nowadays who suddenly turned anti-US when the US stopped funding of the Afghan jihad and signed the Geneva Accords in 1986.

After the successful Ambella campaign of 1862 near Swat, British forces had ample control over the plains as well as mountains of the Punjab. To boost the garrison economy, they built canal colonies, and introduced schemes like cow and horse breeding, which served the garrison economy in multiple ways. It was a demographic as well as an economic shift in the Punjab. Since then, a battle is being fought within Punjab between the garrison economy and others. After annexation of Punjab, the new war front was Afghanistan and beyond. Now they wanted to recruit an army from the Punjabi areas adjacent to the Afghan frontier. To appease the Punjabis, under the instructions of Lawrence, they started massive construction in Lahore, introduced Railways, constructed buildings and formed schools in specific areas. They built a canal system to feed and recruit army. They distributed lands among loyalists who were subservient to the garrison economy. They followed the Maharaja and shifted Northern Command Headquarters to Rawalpindi.

(To be continued)

The writer is a Lahore-based editor and researcher. He can be reached at aamirriaz1966@gmail.com
Part 2 link
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-anti-punjab-mayhem-ii-aamir-riaz.html?view=classic

Remember March 29: A day When Britain annexed the Punjab

Remember March 29

A day When Britain annexed the Punjab

Due to Lhore Blast (26 March 2016) we have cancelled Today's Show (2nd in series) and will do it later. Aamir
It is story of more than 200 million Punjabis living in Two Punjabs, in different parts of South Asia, UK, Canada, USA, Middle East and rest of the world. Listen the first part of Lok Lhar radio show and we will do another program from post Maharaja times till the day of annexation soon. Just Think Why Indian, Pakistani and Britain media always ignore that Day ? 

167 years back when Punjabis were celebrating famous Festivals of Lights (Charaghann da Mela) their lands were annexed after massive resistance in which numerous Punjabis, Pathans and Kashmiris fought against Britain.  Although there is ample literature available regarding Lhore Darbar which ruled for 50 years yet under colonial legacy our children have no knowledge about it. Our historians, educationists and media still reluctant to leave that colonial baggage partly due to Anti Lhore Darbar propaganda and partly due to communal preferences.  We as the Punjab Punch did a program in 2014 " Annexation of the Punjab Day "  and this year two radio programs planned at Mast FM 103. You can listen recording of the first show by clicking History of the Punjab & Its surroundings Open the colonial knot & Deconstruct misleading History

You can listen 2nd show at 28th March 2016 from 4 to 6 pm (Pakistani time)

A book under process about Forgotten Punjab by Aamir Riaz ( A triology)

You can visit various pages at this blog in which we tries our best to unfold this day

29th March: A Day when Britain annexed The Punjab 166 years back and jeopardized the whole region 29th March A Day when Britain annexed The Punjab 166 years back and jeopardized the whole region

http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/search?q=annexation

Forgotten Punjab For new generation of Punjabis. Must watch A glimpse of greatness of the pre-British Punjab 1707-1849

Our anti-Punjab clamour — 1

Our anti-Punjab mayhem — II

Some useful links to understand history of the Punjab

Part 2: Some useful links to understand history of the Punjab

Shashi Tharoor & his imagined Old Pride. Some Stray thoughts

Just leave Old Prides & Prejudices for Once

 For me it is black & white answer  of a complex situation.  British pride is twisted in many ways but it is more harmful for British people. It is time for the world nation states to de-link themselves from old Empires rather than praising them. Interestingly, like colonial apologists, Shashi too fix in Old Pride and that is the core problematic issue.  

Video Clip of Shashi Argument

There are many questions about the thesis and it needs some deconstruction too. I heard his famous lecture too. Interestingly no one ever ask him about the data he used in it. Like 27% global GDP in 1700 or 23% in 1800. He told us that in 1947 it had reduced to 3%.
He did not tell us what was the literacy rate before annexation yet he may be right that in 1947 it was below 17%.
What was life expectancy rate before annexation? he did not mention yet he said that it was 27 in 1947.
Similarly he did not enrich about growth rate of pre British India yet he gave a figure from 1900 to 1947 and that was 0.001%.
He smartly quoted Will Durand regarding education spending but it was a general comment comparing New York and British India in 1930.
It is problematic to explain pre British Indian glory with some isolated examples of Roman Senators.
There are many issues in that narrative and in the absence of old data, it may sound nationalistic yet hard to attract a researcher.
RETHINKING
Colonization did many bad things and it had destroyed many things too but you cannot analysis ancient or past history with modern tools. Fundamentalists often analysis modern history with ancient tools and similarly if we analysis 1000 years back history with modern tools like life expectancy rates, human rights, gender, education cum literacy, GDP etc it often suited some times but it is often become problematic for researchers.
What Shahshi is saying may be understandable but why students and participants in shows and institutions did not question old data? How he got data of 500 years back? Do we have any data of life expectancy rate of ancient Greeks? Talking in terms of percentage about even 300 years back situation is problematic in many ways.
There are many more questions. Was there any thing exists like One Nation (India) before annexation? Just check history of areas like Tibat, Nepal, Burma, areas beyond Peshawar, Hamachal, Costal lands on Baluchistan etc during Mughal period?
What was British India? We have to understand factual position. Till 1846-9, areas like Kashmir, KPK, whole Punjab were not part of British India.
Till 1935, even Aden (port of Yemen) was included in British India while Sheri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan were out of it by colonial rulers. What we means by using notions like Indian Wealth? is it a post Nation State imagination largely depends on dreams rather than facts? Till 17th century even Britain nation was not imagined like in 20th century or modern Germany was Prussia , US was not created and these are simple facts. Can we draw modern Nation States from old King-ships? In mid 19th Century, a German traveler Baron Charles Hugel wrote a book  who came to our lands but its dedication was for a imagined European Christian Empire. Today we are living in Nation States and it is largely a 20th century phenomenon  yet Shashi ji is trying to expand it till ancient times . It is over nationalistic in many ways. 
There are many bad rather twisting things we had in our colonial past including misleading prides too but nationalism is no answer of them at all. What we did in last 70 years in Bharat, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sheri Lanka, Nepal etc is too part of the history. I donot want to buy twisted theory of European supremacy but it does not mean that i have to fix my self with twisted nationalists.  For me it is black & white answer  of a complex situation.  British pride is twisted in many ways but it is more harmful for British people. It is time for the world nation states to delink themselves from old Empires rather than praising them. Interestingly, like colonial apologists, Shashi too fix in Old Pride and that is the core problematic issue.  

Why We Went on Wrong Side after 1947.....Interview of 88 year Old writer from the Punjab

Why We Went on Wrong Side after 1947

Interview of 88 year Old writer from the Punjab

 Published in the News on Sunday 

Nomination of Liaqat Ali Khan as PM, Selection of Karachi as Capital, Malpractices in redistribution of evacuee property  and introduction of tricky Objective Resolution diverted us and it proved fatal for democracy and the State.  It is important to introduce pre-partition times to youngsters because they are heavenly infected by misleading narratives across the border. Supporters of Urdu played itself vital role in the downfall of the language. We had a strong Persu-Punjabi medium before annexation of the Punjab till 1849 yet after annexation colonial masters had imposed Urdu. Had we chose not to oppose progressives on the basis of Islam in early formative years, things would be different. It strengthen religious extremists in early days. it is genesis of a bad narrative and Shahid Hamid pinpointed it too. Read the interview

For the complete interview ClickHERE

I am proud of my Punjabi identity and love of Punjabi language and I know that we had a strong Perso-Punjabi past which was destroyed by the colonial rulers after the annexation of the Punjab in 1849....Imposition of Urdu in the Punjab was a conspiracy. When I started schooling, Punjabi was not an option in schools....Our teachers were very smart, so they often used Punjabi in classes informally and I recorded many things in my book too

Crime against democracy and Pakistan 
The biggest failure of Liaquat Ali Khan was his incompetence or lack of interest in constitution-making. Indian politicians did it promptly and held elections too. But here the prime minister instead of making constitution imposed the tricky Objectives Resolution within six months of the death of the founder of the nation. It proved fatal for democracy and the country.

Two major Blunders of early days that ruined blessings of freedom in Pakistan 
Selection of Karachi as the capital and malpractices regarding evacuee properties of Hindus and Sikhs were the two prime wrong decisions in early days. Mian Iftikharuddin had good vision regarding the distribution of evacuee property and settlement of muhajirs. But the feudals under the leadership of Liaquat Ali Khan opposed him and Mian Iftikharuddin had to voluntarily resign from his ministry only after three months of being in office in 1947.

Literature & Journalism
I worked in daily Afaaq in the early years of Pakistan. I introduced Intizar Husain but Sardar Fazli, a senior person in the editorial, refused to accommodate him. Later, the owner Mir Noor Ahmad agreed and Intizar started writing.

While working at Afaaq, Professor Sarwar used to identify personalities that I was to interview. He usually guided me in developing questions for the interview. One day, he told me to interview Manto and I did. I remember that Muzaffar Ali Syed did not like that interview.

Unfortunately, we are masters in destroying archival record. Once I needed that interview but failed to find the Afaaq file in any public library. Much of our history is recorded in newspapers like Imroz, Pakistan Times, Afaaq, Civil & Military Gazette etc. but we have no record of these newspapers in our public libraries, which is shameful.

Further readings
Extracts of autobiography

Review in TNS by Salim ur rahman

Published in Humshehri نامور مترجم کی سوانح حیات

Misleading Prides of 1857: Riddles of Old Narrative

Misleading Prides of 1857

Riddles of Old Narrative

Think & Rethink For Once

There are similarities between 1857 rebellion and Taliban's anti-Americanism of post Geneva Accord 1988. Both movements were a reaction of those who had lost their jobs. After 1849, the empire neither needed ceremonial Mughal nor Royal Bengal Army. What were the issues in cantonments? After annexation of the Punjab (1849), as par Frontier Forward Policy the Empire had to move her army towards Oxus and for references one can read British assembly debates of 1848 . They were ready to replace Royal Bengal Army. Till annexation of the Punjab RBA was trump card of the Empire in which Hindus were in majority and they were engaged in a battle to conquer Muslim majority areas.Since 50 years colonial rulers were waiting for that day. Yet after annexation the Empire coined thesis of marshall races for Pukhtoons, Punjabis etc. Now new recruitment area was near Pindi so it became head quarter of newly formed Northern Command. Had 1857 revolutionaries some vision they would support Lhore Darbar against Britishers in 1846, 1848 wars things must be different. Even Afghan king Dost mohammad Khan's son fought against Britishers in historic ChillianWalla (Gujrat, Punjab) war. 1857 small uprising was an effort from a defeatist mindset. From three generations, B S Zafar family was on pension since 1803. Minority muslims were victim of their own false prides. They failed to understand change in politics after introduction of vote base politics in early 20th century. Had muslims living in minority muslim provinces a vision they would made alliances with disadvantage groups living in minority muslim areas but they remained busy in the revival of lost pride and called themselves "Islamian e Hind". In reality majority of muslims were in the Punjab and Bengal. Lucknow Pact of 1916 was a pitfall for indian muslims because it divided muslims of majority provinces from muslims of minority provinces. it was an effort to reduce the strength of muslim majority provinces. that is why Allma Iqbal called it a pitfall in Allahbad address. Even C R Das, Hakim Ajmal, Mian Shafi opposed it. 1940 resolution finally accepted that reality. Cannot we reavaluate our pitfalls in 21st century?  One should try to leave old narrative

A case of Punjabi by Sara Kazmi ... Achievements, Gapes & misunderstandings

A case of Punjabi by Sara Kazmi 

Achievements, Gapes & misunderstandings

Case of Punjabi is not as simple as it usually understood. Sara Kazmi tried her best to present a case but it needs little attention too. Absence of Abdul Majid Bhatti's first Pakistani Punjabi novel Dhaeedaan and first Pakistani Punjabi poetry book Tranjan penned by famous Ahmad Rahi is not good. Both books published in early 1950s by People's Publishing House. Question of Punjab and Punjabi are interrelated. Acceptance of diversity in languages & cultures is the basic thing and in this respect various language promotion movements in Pakistan including much praised Bengali movement did not play well. In 2009 I visited Bangladesh and did interviews with many Bengali intellectuals. kamal Lohani told me that after independence we imposed One language policy in newly formed country and its worst victims were non-Bengali speaking people living in Chittagong Hill areas. It was a bad policy and till today they are fighting for their rights.Link of the Interview I did at Dhakka in April 7, 2008  If you have majority than it does not mean to impose majority on minorities. In either case acceptance of diversity remains vital .Even in united Pakistan jagto Front of Bengali parties demanded status of co-national language for Bengali. Instead of advocating linguistic diversity they just wanted a special status for Bengali. It was a bad policy but Jugto front failed to realized it in 1954. What bengalis did in 1972 in Bangladesh was continuation of old twisted policy. In-fact Dhaka followed Karachi in post independence era.
we have to deconstruct colonial language policy for once. There are many pending issues in this regard which needs a revisiting process. Even anti-imperialists or anti-colonialists had twisted policies regarding languages. What was the colonial linguistic policy? why they use religion for playing with scripts, dialects? The most important and fatal policy regarding languages was to link languages with religions. In many ways it helped in rise of communal-ism & extremism in our societies. These questions needs little attention. 
It is important to revisit 1920 resolution regarding twisted policy of Linguistic Provinces that paved a way to introduced false prides as well as misleading hopes/narratives among nationalists in many ways. After 1947 Bharat and Congress withdrew from it openly and speech of founder of constitution Amedkar is on the record regarding that retreat. In 1920 Congress promoted one language policy but after independence keeping in view of new preferences the emphasis shifted to linguistic homogeneity. (reference). Interestingly When NAP was formed in 1957 they adopted 1920 line which created problems in many ways. 
Twisted and misleading language policy penned in infamous Nehru report against Punjabi needs special attention? What Congress ministries did in 1937-9 regarding imposition of Hindi and impact of Hindi, Tamil language riots in Madras in 1938? is part of the problem yet we often missed it. Tamil Hindi controversy again raised in 1940s and 1950s in India. (Reference) . It is high time to deconstruct misleading Urdu Hindi controversy as well as politics associated with Hindi and Hindostani. Role of English is also very important to understand language debate in South Asia.
What first education minister said in the first education conference in November 1947 in favor of Pakistani Mother Tongues is important in many ways yet it remain out of discussion?
What communists did in Feb 1948? and their twisted policy created at 2nd Conference in Calcutta needs revision?  Why they created only West Pakistan Communist Party ? while East Pakistani Communists remained under Calcutta that provided a golden opportunity to anti-communist elements to play it against communists in Pakistan during formative years. On top of it CPI nakedly supported bad policy of Nehru regarding Kashmir in 1948 congress. CPP remained divided on that issue that proved fatal.
Creation of one language, one religion centralist policy through infamous Objective Resolution was continuation of colonial centralism and deviation from federalism. We have to revisit role of nationalist politicians and reluctant democrats too. In short many more questions are still unheard and in the absence of these answers we usually fail to develop a good alternative.
On top of it factionalism among language supporters always played a vital role. I remember late 1980s when I was associated with some friends and we had formed a progressive Punjabi group Punjab Lok Lhar. With the help of many seniors we finally gathered all factions and organized a rally at the mall, Lhore. During those efforts friends witnessed a tug of war among Punjabi groups. Even many of them were not in taking terms with each other. It was very difficult to gather them under one roof. Although they all have record of commitment and achievements regarding Punjabi but due to lobbyist tendencies they often failed to acknowledge each other contributions. The situation is not much different even today and we still have to learn the art to live with difference. Lobbyist tendencies proved fatal in many ways. it is high time to leave prides and prejudices. Such factionalism always plays vital role against the cause itself. it is need of the hour to create a space where all Punjabis can sit together in the larger interest of the Punjab and Punjabi. We still have not any personality or group of Punjabis who can gather all sections.It is important to create linkages among various mother tongue groups in order to develop a fresh narrative. It is important to deconstruct language politics started from 1920 resolution of Congress based on Linguistic provinces. It was the same policy adopted by the NAP in 1957 in Pakistan. it is essential to accept linguistic diversity not only at federal level but also at provincial as well as district level. A language commission at federal level under parliament may help us in minimizing differences regarding languages in general and people in particular.
Literature may play vital role but we need to expand case of Punjabi to people working in education, history etc. linking Punjabi with numerous sections may be an entry point for a vibrant movement. I tried to pinpoint some issues in Blue for more discussion and also sharing the link of original article here. It is part of discussion.  A fresh narrative for Punjabi is need of the hour.

Mind your language—The movement for the preservation of Punjabi

The atmosphere is pumped with adrenaline. As I approach the buzzing crowd, thedhol beats even more urgently against my eardrum, thump thump thump… only to come to an abrupt halt as the crackling of a loudspeaker rings through the air. Atop a decorated truck stands Afzal Saahir, popular Punjabi poet and television personality. He is not television personality but a popular radio anchor.

When Field Marshal Ayub Khan takes over power in a military coup in 1958, Bengali’s status as a national language is taken away. It is a wrong fact because in 1962 constitution of Ayub Khan Bengali remained there as co-national language. For reference click Here

Since the 1960s, people in southern Punjab have been complaining that their region was being kept underdeveloped for the benefit of the central and northern parts of the province. wrong fact, the main party that supported ethnic politics, rights for nationalities and languages was National Awami Party formed in 1957. Before this party CPP was an advocate of mother tongues. CPP was banned in 1954 and NAP was banned by Supreme court in 1975. None of the party ever demanded regarding Seraiki. In both parties there were many people from South Punjab. The issue of seriaki is a later entry.

Punjab has always maintained an overwhelming presence – much larger than its demographic share – in both the military and the bureaucracy. here instead of population the writer used the term demography but what she is saying is against facts. it is a fact that the Punjab had a trained army before annexation of 1849. Till 1929, out of total 158,200 army men 86000 were from the Punjab (click and see the reference). after 2nd WW their percentage raised up to 75%and so. But in bureaucracy, even in early years, Urdu speaking were larger then their percentage.  Even today Pukhtoons are larger in civil military institutions with respect to their population. 

With 148 of the 272 directly-elected National Assembly seats belonging to Punjab. The Punjab has 56% population in Pakistan and as par calculation it should have 152 seats. While FATA has less then 2.3 share in population but it has more then 4% share in National Assembly.  

Punjabi, in fact, has always remained outside the business of the state. The Mughals brought Persian to the subcontinent and it remained the language of the court from Babur to Aurangzeb and afterwards. In fact, even Ranjit Singh, who is celebrated by many Punjabi nationalists as the only Punjabi to have ruled Punjab, chose to retain Persian as the language of his darbar, issuing all royal proclamations and legal injunctions in it. Punjabi was never institutionalised as a language of statecraft; nor did it become a formal medium of education. It is always problematic to compare apples with oranges, monarchies with nation states. Use of languages as tool of state craft is a modern weapon used in nation states. Till annexation of subcontinent Persian was there as darbar language not only in Bengal, Sindh etc but also in numerous provinces of subcontinent. If we read History of Indigenous Education in the Punjab: Since Annexation and in 1882 we can easily understand status and power of Punjabi in Pre-annexation Punjab. There were six scripts including three commercial scripts of Punjabi and the language was used in schools too. Punjabi was also used in the darbar and in the book The real Ranjit Singh and many more books it is recorded. 

Farina Mir, a historian of colonial and postcolonial South Asia at the University of Michigan and the author of The Social Space of Language: Vernacular Culture in British Colonial Punjab, has explained in detail how the British Raj preferred vernacular languages for administration in every other province of India except in Punjab where it deemed Urdu as the appropriate language for administration. Punjabi, she says, was seen as a “crude version” of Hindustani, “a rural patois” unsuited to the needs of office. Others within the colonial administration cited its sacredness for the Sikhs, the ousted rulers of Punjab, claiming that adopting Punjabi would be “a political mistake” for the British.   
In many areas British Indian administration did not use mother tongue and Punjabi was not the only exception and for record check history of languages like Tamil, Kashmiri, Pashto, Brahvi and Balochi.   Bengali and Sindhi were made official languages by colonial rulers. In 1865 they imposed Urdu in the Punjab that had areas from Delhi to Peshawar. They imposed Urdu in Kashmir in 1872. The most important and fatal policy regarding languages was to link languages with religions. In many ways it helped in rise of communal-ism in our society. They imposed Punjabi in certain areas of Punjab for Sikhs and used Gurmukhi script. Purpose was to play with communal divide. In 1867 colonial masters imposed Hindi in Tamil populated Madras province. Just read 1931 census, British Indian administration divided only two languages in different sections and called it northern , southern etc and those two languages were Hindi and Punjabi. It was a further trick to divide those languages...divide and rule was their favorite policy.
In Pakistan, Urdu was not just the language of governance. It also became proof of Muslim-ness, an emblem of national identity and a mark of patriotism. But Urdu remained subservient to English that was language of old colonial masters 
Hafeez Jalandhari read Punjabi poems at rallies pushing for the language’s official recognition. Feroze Khan Noon chaired meetings to establish a fund for promoting Punjabi. Hameed Nizami, editor of daily Nawa-i-Waqt, used his newspaper for voicing the same demand. In 1951, he wrote an article in Punjabi which called for introducing the language in the education system. Supporting Punjabi language and culture and use it as a tool in power politics is another thing and supporting it as a basic right is another thing. 
The Punjabi Majlis and the Punjabi Writers Guild, two major literary organisations of the time, were banned as a result, in 1959 and in 1963, respectively. needs reference

“We cannot analyse the Punjabi movement the same way we analyse other ethno-nationalist and linguistic movements. The Punjabi language activists are not separatists or nationalists. As the ruling majority [in Pakistan], Punjab stands to lose far too much by raising anti-Pakistan slogans,” he explains. It is not correct. There were/are many Pashto, sindhi, Balochi and Brahvi writers who were/are neither separatist nor against the State. if we strictly check literary record penned in different mother tongues in 1960s or 1970s etc we can easily deconstruct that claim. It is true that Pukhtoon, Sindhi and Balochi nationalists used language issue but when they got power in 1972 they did not replace Urdu except Sindhis. But handling of Sindhi Urdu controversy proved a wrong step by Mumtaz Bhutto that divided Sindh more. It was against acceptance of diversity at provincial level. it is proved that Mumtaz Bhutto was even against Bhutto and with such efforts nationalists embarrassed the first democratic government
“Punjabi is the language of resistance because it has always remained outside power. Why convert it into a tool of the state, to replace Urdu as the language of oppression?” he asked provocatively in one editorial note. So he want to remain in resistance mode for ever. It looks more problematic. In this way there is no demand to replace Urdu.