Muslim League

भारत-विभाजन विरोधी मुसलमान: देशप्रेमी मुसलमानों की अनकही दास्तान
(2019 का प्रकाशन)

डॉ॰ शम्सुल इस्लाम ने भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के इतिहास में सबसे अधिक उपेक्षित किये गए अध्याय पर क़लम उठाया है, अर्थात् उन मुसलमानों पर जो भारत-विभाजन के विरोधी थे। छिपे तथ्यों को उजागर करने वाले शोध पर आधारित यह बहुमूल्य पुस्तक है जिसने भारत विभाजन से सम्बंधित बहुत सारे मिथकों का पर्दाफ़ाश किया है (डॉ॰ इश्तियाक़ अहमद, अवकाश प्राप्त प्रोफ़ेसर, स्टॉकहोम यूनिवर्सिटी) ।
समकालीन मूल स्रोतों पर आधारित, भारत-विभाजन पर यह महत्वपूर्ण अध्ययन यह बताता है कि 1940-42 में पाकिस्तान के विकल्प के मुक़ाबले में एक अखण्ड भारत के लिए मुसलमानों के बीच बहुत अधिक समर्थन पाया जाता था। अल्लाह बख़्श जैसे लोगों, जिन्होंने द्वि-राष्ट्र सिद्धांत का कड़ा विरोध किया और उसके लिए अपना जीवन तक क़ुर्बान किया, की आवाज़़ों को नज़रअंदाज़ किये जाने ने, हिन्दुत्व टोली को द्वि-राष्ट्र सिद्धांत के प्रति अपने जुड़ाओ से ध्यान भटकाने का ही काम किया है ।
(डॉ॰ रिचर्ड बोनी, अवकाश प्राप्त प्रोफे़सर, यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ़ लेस्टर) 
Dr. Shamsul Islam has written the most neglected chapter in the history of the Indian freedom struggle: on Muslims who were opposed to Partition. Based on ground-breaking research, it is an outstanding contribution which should set the record straight in great measure.—Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Professor Emeritus, Stockholm University.
This important study on the Partition of India, based on contemporary original sources, suggests that in 1940-2 there was more support among Muslims for an undivided India than for the Pakistan option. The failure to remember voices, such as that of Allah Bakhsh, who opposed two-nation theory vehemently and paid with his life, has helped the Hindutva camp to divert attention from its own commitment to the two-nation theory.— Dr. Richard Bonney, Professor Emeritus, University of Leicester.
Dr. Shamsul Islam’s book is a very timely intervention in the debate about the role of Muslims in India’s Partition. Relying on contemporary documents, he quashes the popular myth that India’s Partition was due to Muslims. He deserves all the credit for demolishing the two-nation theory.--Dr. Ram Puniyani
LINK FOR BUYING:https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211066/


This book is presently available in English, Urdu and Bengali too.
1. Muslims Against Partition of India: The Untold Story of Allah Bakhsh and Other Patriotic Muslims (3rd  Edition)
INR 280.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172210922/
2.भारत-विभाजन विरोधी मुसलमान (Hindi) Bharat-Vibhajan Virodhi Musalmaan  (1st Edition)
INR 300.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211066/
3. Taqseem-e-Hind Ke Mukhalif Musalmaan (Urdu) تقسیمِ ہند کے مخالف مسلمان
INR 350.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211073/
4. Bharat Bhang Virodhi Muslim Janmat (Bengali edition of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA)
INR 300.00
K P BAGCHI & COMPANY
286, B. B. Ganguli Street, Kolkata-700 012
E: [email protected]; W: www.kpbagchi.com; Phone : 2236-7474, 2236-9496

The formation of the All-India Muslim League, the first ever Muslim political party in British India to see the light of the day, represents a watershed in the political history of the Indian subcontinent. It was, in fact, the outcome of a long historical process during which the Muslims of India faced challenges at different levels, political, economic and socio-cultural. Yet, the origin of this political organisation has been a moot point among scholars. Did the British have a hand in its creation or was it a genuinely Muslim initiative? The aim of this article, therefore, is to investigate this issue as well as shed light on the circumstances that led to the birth of this party.

While a political history of the Pakistani Left and its engagement with the Muslim League is a narrative that deserves attention in its own right, it also reveals significant insights into the colonial and post-colonial political landscape. First, it highlights the social and political limits of Radicalism and the resultant choices and compromises it had to make in order for it to remain a viable socio-political alternative. Second, it also deepens our understanding of the nature of the colonial state and, more crucially, the continuities between it and its post-colonial successor, an observation that communists were quick to make following independence. Consequently, and most importantly, such an examination also challenges the triumphalism and chauvinism inherent in nationalist historiography, whose hegemony only serves to silence dissenting voices.

Those who have somehow reconciled with the mythologised history of ancient India will surely be surprised by the continuing trend of myth-making even in modern times.
Partition of India has largely been covered by thick layers of deliberate untruths to construct communal narratives
demonising Muslims.
Not many people know that a majority of Muslims did not approve of the idea and large numbers of them actually opposed it. These facts, however, remain largely unexplored except in a few scholarly treatises. The present book by a noted scholar and a progressive activist-thinker Shamsul Islam, devoted to exposing these truths to the larger public,
is not only a welcome contribution but also a timely one, given that Hindutva forces are falsifying our history with a
fascist zeal.

The secular-democratic polity of India has been besieged with challenges ever since its birth on 15 August 1947. It was born as an independent nation in the midst of unprecedented communal violence, mayhem and destruction of life and property. The communal polarisation had ravaged the subcontinent even before the birth of an independent Indian nation. The independence of India after many centuries of repressive colonial rule should have been an occasion of great jubilation. Unfortunately, the partition of the country following the Two-nation theory propagated by the Muslim League turned the birth of a secular-democratic India into a dreadful nightmare. Interestingly, this was done in the name of nationalism. However, the people of India, despite the creation of Pakistan on the eastern and western sides of the country on the basis of religion, had a significant reason to celebrate Independence as India chose to be a non-theocratic state and declared its commitment to a secular-democratic polity. Undeniably, there were serious theoretical as well as practical weaknesses in this claim; nevertheless, it was a brave, historic and revolutionary commitment. In a situation where the Muslim League, under the leadership of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had succeeded in dismembering India ruled by the British, thus legitimizing the thesis that each religious community constituted a separate nation too, the commitment to a secular India was indeed praiseworthy.
The partition of a united India was the tragic culmination of a long and ferocious struggle between organizations like the Indian National Congress (hereafter referred to as Congress) and the Muslim League, with the British rulers playing the game of favouring Two-nation theory. The choice of a non-theocratic state by the Congress leadership immediately after Independence was not the result of appeasement of religious minority groups, but rather a continuation of the anti-colonial legacy of the Congress which stood for a secular-democratic India. Congress’s “inclusionary nationalism” challenged the Muslim League’s “exclusionary communalism”  believing that nations were not constituted merely out of religious identities. The predominantly Hindu leadership of the Congress, rising above emotional and communal feelings, arrived at a consensus that a theocratic state would be inherently antithetical to democracy and could not guarantee the stability and progress of a nation. There were hard facts available in abundance to prove the veracity of the Congress’ thesis, or that of those who opposed the Two-nation theory. For example, despite the creation of Pakistan in the name of Islam, a majority of Muslims chose to remain in India on the eve of partition. Thus, India became the country with the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia, a reality that has not changed even today. On the other hand, Nepal ruled by a Hindu King with a population of more than 90% Hindus remained a separate nation. No one claimed that since the populations of both Nepal and India were predominantly Hindus, they should have formed one nation.
It is true that the Muslim League’s juggernaut was successful in achieving its objective of dividing India on communal lines but it is also true that all Muslims did not subscribe to its philosophy. There were popular Muslim leaders like Allah Baksh, having a large following among common Muslims all over India, who vocally opposed the Two-nation theory and challenged the very basis of Muslim communal politics.
However, the crucial reality should not be overlooked that it was not only the Muslim League which believed in the Two-nation theory. There had been a highly vocal and aggressive section amongst Hindus, long before the Independence of the country, which believed that India was primordially a Hindu nation and only Hindus could be the natural inhabitants of this holy land. The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha were two such prominent organizations. These forces continue to present a serious threat to secular-democratic polity of India. Their game-plan is discussed in details here.

Faisal Devji. Muslim Zion: Pakist an as a Polit ical Idea, if we consider all recent ly adopt ed regulat ions, it is clear t hat t he manufact uring error saves plasma post modernism. Muslim Zion, based on t he st ruct ure of Maslow's pyramid, t he shift licenses civil law nucleophil.

INCLUSION OF STUDY OF RSS IN THE UNIVERSITY SYLLABUS
OPEN LETTER TO THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY
Respected Vice-chancellor Dr. Siddharthavinayaka P. Kane Saheb,
I am writing this open letter to you on a critical issue concerning the contents of the syllabus at your University. As per a communiqué of the the University which must have had your concurrence, the history of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and its role in 'nation-building' have been included in the syllabus for in the second year BA (History) course. Surprisingly, it has been accommodated by removing a crucial topic, 'Rise and growth of communalism in India'. According to Mr. Satish Chafle, spokesperson the University it has been done to accommodate the "Nationalist school of thoughts". 
Vice-chancellor Saheb!
There cannot be a bigger lie than this that RSS was ever an Indian nationalist organization or it played any nation-building role so far as our democratic-secular India is concerned. On the contrary, RSS since its birth in 1925 with its Hindutva allies like Hindu Mahasabha led by VD Savarkar worked overtime to betray the glorious anti-colonial freedom struggle, denigrated all symbols of national unity, belittled the martyrs, demanded promulgation of inhuman Manusmriti as constitution of India, decried democracy  and demanded conversion of democratic-secular polity into a Hindutva state. As if all this was not enough, the RSS idol and the Hindutva icon 'Veer' Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha ran coalition governments with the Muslim League in 1942 and backstabbed Netaji when he was trying to liberate Indian militarily.
Sir,
I trust you as an educationist and believe that you have stakes in finding the truth about RSS or any other organization. I am producing immensely disturbing facts about the ideology and practices of RSS from its own archives and no other source.
LINK FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER:
https://countercurrents.org/2019/07/inclusion-of-study-of-history-of-rss-in-the-university-syllabus

Discuss the similarities of method, assumptions and approach between the following two authors: 1. Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, The Muslim League and the FOREWARD In the words of the Urdu writer, Ismat Chughtai (1915-1991): " The flood of communal violence came and went with all its evils, but it left a pile of living, dead, and gasping corpses in its wake. It wasn't only that the country was split in two-bodies and minds were also divided. Moral beliefs were tossed aside and humanity was in shreds. Government officers and clerks along with their chairs, pens and inkpots, were distributed like the spoils of war. Those whose bodies were whole had hearts that were splintered. Families were torn apart. One brother was allotted to Hindustan, the other to Pakistan; the mother was in Hindustan, her offspring were in Pakistan; the husband was in Hindustan, his wife was in Pakistan. The bonds of relationship were in tatters, and in the end many souls remained behind in Hindustan while their bodies started off for Pakistan " 1 How well can we narrate the story of the victors? Or why call them victors when all that they gained had been but 2 nation states, which was no match for how much they lost! Who are the heroes and villains of such creations? They are nothing but a historian's construct and thus are relative. However what led them to be identified as such had been primarily the then

One of the least researched aspects of the Partition of India has been the role of Muslims who opposed the Partition. We are indeed informed about the strong opposition by Congress stalwart Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and  the leader of the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam, Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madni, to the demand for a separate Muslim state made by the All-India Muslim League, but the general impression in both India and Pakistan is that Indian Muslims as a whole supported the Partition. While in India right-wing Hindus blame Muslims for being traitors to the nation and constantly doubt their loyalty, in Pakistan the national narrative thrives on projecting the demand for Pakistan as rooted organically in the Islamic psyche and ethos – to create the Islamic state as part of religious obligation. Consequently, in Pakistan the creation of Pakistan is considered inevitable.
Dr Shamsul Islam’s path-breaking work is a most welcome corrector of this false perception prevalent in both countries. The book covers a great deal of ground and a very useful chapter entitled, ‘Muslim Patriotic Individuals and Organisations’ provides an inventory which can be very handy for further research on this theme. Another chapter presents poetry written by Muslims who opposed Partition.

शम्सुल इस्लाम की भारत विभाजन पर पुस्तक पर चर्चा [Video]

शम्सुल इस्लाम की पुस्तक 'भारत विभाजन विरोधी मुस्लमान: देशप्रेमी मुसलमानों की अनकही दास्तान' पर चर्चा
(सत्य हिंदी-शम्सुल इस्लाम, आशुतोष और
आलोक जोशी)
Discussion on Dr. Shamsul Islam’s book  MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA: REVISITING THE LEGACY OF PATRIOTIC MUSLIMS on सत्य हिंदी (Shamsul Islam, Ashustosh & Alok Joshi)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx0LRMvwwH8&t=228s

AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH, HINDI, URDU, BENGALI, PUNJABI & MARATHI
Muslims Against Partition of India: Revisiting the Legacy of Patriotic Muslims (4th  Edition)
Author: Shamsul Islam
INR 295.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172210922/

भारत-विभाजन विरोधी मुसलमान (Hindi) Bharat-Vibhajan Virodhi Musalmaan  (1st Edition)

Author: Shamsul Islam
INR 300.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211066/
Taqseem-e-Hind Ke Mukhalif Musalmaan (Urdu) تقسیمِ ہند کے مخالف مسلمان
Author: Shamsul Islam
INR 350.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211073/

ਭਾਰਤ-ਵੰਡ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ Bharat-vand Virodhi Musalman (Punjabi)
Author: Shamsul Islam
INR 300.00
BABA BHUJA SINGH PRAKASHAN,
C/O TARK BHARTI PRAKASHAN, BARNALA PUNJAB
Phones: o1679241744, o1679233244. Email: [email protected]

Author: Shamsul Islam
ভারতরভঙ্গ-বিরোধী মুসলিম জনমত Bharat Bhang Virodhi Muslim Janmat (Bengali edition of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA)
INR 300.00
K P BAGCHI & COMPANY
286, B. B. Ganguli Street, Kolkata-700 012
E: [email protected]; W: www.kpbagchi.com; Phone : 2236-7474, 2236-9496

This book is available in Marathi also, translated by renowned Marathi literary figure, Hira Janardan ji. For procuring a copy, please, contact:
Price : ३५०/-
On line buying:
https://lokvangmaybooks.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=102_122&product_id=407
अभेझॉन लर िंक : https://www.amazon.in/dp/9393134340?ref=myi_title_dp
विंऩकद : ८४५४०४९०३६ । ०२२-२४३७६०४२

सावरकर–हिन्दुत्व मिथक और सच (Hindi)
http://www.amazon.in/dp/8172211104
This book is based on the contemporary primary sources.

This book is also available in English (Media House, Delhi), Marathi (Sugwa Praksahan, Nagpur) and Telugu (PDSU, Hyderabad).

Subaltern politics in India is usually studied outside the electoral process. This paper looks at a Muslim organisation of enviable electoral success in Kerala—the Indian Union Muslim League.

By focusing on works by the most iconic of its leaders, C. H. Mohammed Koya, this paper looks at the reconceptualisation of minority politics in the context of Kerala. The paper illustrates that C. H. Mohammed Koya forged a new ethic of minority politics that reoriented the minority subject's with relation to the postcolonial state.

I explore how he fashioned an idea of being a self for his (Muslim) followers which goes beyond the easy positing of the subalterns in India as the passive recipient of governmental welfare measures.

Khilafat Movement was the major organization of Muslims of South Asia in the early 20th century. It was after the rebellion of 1857 and “formal loss of sovereignty”, that the Muslims lost their symbol of unity and power and felt threatened about their future and identity. As a consequence, they found refuge under the Caliphate of the Turkish Sultan. But soon this symbol of Muslims was under threat as the Turkey got actively involved in the World War I against the Allied powers, which included Britain, the legal sovereign of India. This concern of Muslims over the future of Ottoman Caliphate was visible in the writings of many Muslim intelligentsias; Muhammad Iqbal was one of such poets who expressed his feeling about Muslims, being under threat from every nook and corner, others included Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Abul Kalam Azad, Ali Brothers and so on. Although the idea of Khilafat implied a sense of loyalty from its adherents which extended the defined borders of a nation-state, it was in reality a movement for the preservation of a symbol which represented the much wider category of global Islam. Interestingly, this movement was not religious in entirety as for its leaders, religion and nationalism were two sides of the same coin, as the antagonist of both movements was the imperial Britain. For this reason, one can observe the amalgamation of the notions of Indian nationalism and Islamic survival under the symbol of the caliphate.

Betrayal at Midnight – Review of ‘Muslims against Partition’ : Guest Post by Karthik Venkatesh
MARCH 7, 2016
Freedom at midnight put some people in a spot – those Muslims who chose to stay back in India and did not opt for Pakistan. Pakistan was always conceived as a nation that would be created in areas where Muslims were in a majority in undivided India i.e., the north-western portion and a part of the eastern portion. It was difficult to visualize how all of India’s Muslims would be accommodated there because the reality was that Muslims were and are found in every nook and corner in this country. How then was Pakistan going to fulfill its purpose? It clearly could not. Recognizing this and recognizing the danger to those Muslims who could not go to the ‘promised land’, many Muslim leaders opposed the creation of Pakistan. Muslims against Partition by Shamsul Islam (Pharos Media, 2015) is their story. It details how such leaders were in effect betrayed after having striving unreservedly for a united India.

The Hindutva cronies like RSS and Hindu Mahasabha make a brazen claim that they were the only ones who opposed the divisive, communal and two-nation politics of the anti-national Muslim League led by MA Jinnah and played great role in the freedom struggle. There cannot be a worst lie than this and only Hindutva gang can fabricate such lies. The pre-Independence political happenings and documents from the archives of the Hindutva organizations tell us a shameful story of Hindutva organizations aligning with the Muslim League which stood for the Partition of our country.  Part 2 presents facts on the following:
(1)HINDU MAHASABHA LED BY " VEER " SAVARKAR RAN COALITION GOVERNMENTS WITH MUSLIM LEAGUE DURING QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT.
(2) RSS NOT ONLY OPPOSED INDIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE BUT DENIGRATED IT.
(3) Does RSS respect martyrs of the Freedom Movement like Bhagat Singh?
Also see: http://www.countercurrents.org/islam310116.htm

Veteran politician, inveterate rebel, self-styled defender of progressive values; Mian Iftikhar-ud-Din remains one of the most intriguing individuals to have been associated with the Pakistan movement and the Muslim League. As an outspoken advocate of Muslim self-determination and Pakistan, the inclusion of Mian Iftikhar-ud-Din in this volume might seem like an odd choice indeed. And yet, his political journey reveals much about the tense political climate of the 1940s and the impossible choices that many were confronted with at the time. More importantly, though, his politics also provides an insight into the varied dreams and aspirations that were tied to the idea of Pakistan. In doing so, Mian Iftikhar-ud-Din's political trajectory also contributes to a deeper understanding of relatively neglected aspects of the Pakistan movement and the early years of the nascent post-colonial state when many of those utopian dreams turned sour.

Friends I am glad to share with you the news of the publication of Punjabi edition of my book on Partition of India. It has been translated by veer Boota Singh ji.
This book is available in English, Hindi, Urdu, and Bengali too.
Publishers: Baba Bujua Singh Parkashan, Mehmoodpur, Dist. SBS Nagar. Phone 9463474342
Distributors: Tarkbharti Parkashan Barnala, Phone 9357512244.

Pakistan is both the embodiment of national ambitions fulfilled and, in the eyes of many, a failed state. Muslim Zion cuts to the core of the geopolitical paradoxes entangling Pakistan to argue that it has never been a nation state in the conventional sense. It is instead a distinct type of political geography, ungrounded in the historic connections of lands and peoples, whose context is provided by the settler states of the New World but whose closest ideological parallel is the state of Israel. A year before the 1948 establishment of Israel, Pakistan was founded on a philosophy that accords with Zionism in surprising ways. This book understands Zion as a political form rather than a holy land, one that rejects hereditary linkages between ethnicity and soil in favour of membership based on nothing but the idea of belonging. Like Israel, Pakistan came into being through the migration of a minority population, inhabiting a vast subcontinent, who abandoned old lands in which they fear...

Aga Khan 3rd in the History of Pakistan
本論では、20世紀初頭からパキスタン建国までのアーガー=カーン3 世に着目し、彼が ヒンドゥー、ムスリム、大英帝国に対して、どういった考えを持っていたのかを探る。加 えて、彼独自の見解が最もよく表れている「南アジア連邦」構想についても言及する。

アーガー=カーン 3 世はイスマーイール派のコージャー派のイマームであり、パキスタ ン建国にも貢献している。また、彼のボランティア精神は、次の世代にも受け継がれ、主 に現在のパキスタンの発展に貢献している。このように、アーガー=カーン 3 世は非常に 多岐に及ぶ活動を手掛けていたのである。しかしながら、彼に関する研究は少なく、日本 語の歴史書や事典でもあまり深く言及されていない。彼が何を考え、また、彼の何が支持 されたのかということについては、全くといって良いほど記述がないのである。

果たして、彼は注目に値しない人物なのであろうか。パキスタン独立運動という激動の 時代に立って、ヒンドゥーや大英帝国の指導者らとの関係を維持しつつ、ムスリム指導者 の一員として政治活動を行ってきたことは、かなりの功績を成し得たといえるのではない だろうか。

多くの人々が、独自の見解を持ち、独立運動に加わっていた。その中でも、近代派ムス リムといわれている人々はイスラムの伝統を保ちつつ、ヨーロッパの文化や思想に理解を 示していた。当時、インドに住むムスリムはヒンドゥーに比べて後進的であるという見解 があった。そこで、ムスリムに西洋の近代教育を施し、植民地官僚に就かせることによっ て改善しようとしたのである。そのため、イギリス人との親交も深かったようである。本 論で取り上げるアーガー-カーン3世も、この近代派ムスリムの一人であった。

また、アーガー=カーン3世はヒンドゥーとも親交があった。パキスタン独立直前まで、 インド国民会議派の指導者と交流を重ねていたのである。彼は、イスマーイール派の伝統 的なイマームであったが、決してヒンドゥーを敵視することはなかった。

多くの歴史家はアーガー=カーン 3 世の意見を一貫性のないものと評価している。しか し、彼の大英帝国への忠誠心は、他の指導者と比べものにならないほど強く固まっていた。 さらに、彼が理想としている「南アジア連邦」は、撤回されることなく主張され続けてい た。

本論での考察によって、アーガー=カーン 3世がムスリム、ヒンドゥー、大英帝国に対 して、どういった考えを持っていたかを明らかにする。

The post-1857 revolt era represents one of the highly eventful phases in the history of the Muslims in British India. Perhaps the most striking event was the U-turn that occurred in the minds of the Muslim elite by the turn of the century whereby they became convinced that the old advice preached by the late community leader, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, regarding aloofness from politics was no longer helpful to the cause of their co-religionists. This change of heart was, in fact, spurred by new challenges that the Muslims of India were facing in the light of the new context in the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, the aim of this work is to look into these challenges which brought the followers of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan face to face with the option of entering politics, as an inevitable move in order to survive.

आरएसएस/भाजपा के भारत-रत्न उम्मीदवार सावरकर ने 1942 में मुस्लिम लीग के साथ साझा सरकारों चलाईं
विनायक दामोदर सावरकर की अध्यक्षता में हिंदू महासभा ने 1942 में अंग्रेज़ों भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन का दमन करने के लिए निर्लज्जता पूर्वक अपने अंग्रेज़ आक़ाओं का साथ दिया था। बरतानिया साम्राज्य के साथ उनका यह 'उत्तरदायी सहयोग' महज़ सैद्धांतिक क़ौल तक ही सीमित नहीं था। हिंदू महासभा और  मुस्लिम लीग गठबंधन के रूप में भी यह सामने आया था। यह वह वक़्त था जब कांग्रेस सहित सभी राजनीतिक संगठनों पर प्रतिबंध थे, केवल हिंदू महासभा और मुस्लिम लीग पर कोर्इ प्रतिबंध नहीं था।  यही समय था जिस समय हिंदुत्व टोली के "वीर" सावरकर के नेतृत्व में हिंदू महासभा ने मुस्लिम लीग के साथ मिलकर गठबंधन सरकारें चलाईं। हिंदू महासभा के कानपुर अधिवेशन में  सावरकर ने अध्यक्षीय भाषण में इस सांठगांठ की पैरवी इन लफ्ज़ों में की थी :

"व्यावहारिक राजनीति में भी हिंदू महासभा जानती है कि बुद्धिसम्मत समझौतों के जरिए आगे बढ़ना चाहिए। यहां सिंध हिंदू महासभा ने निमंत्रण के बाद मुस्लिम लीग के साथ मिली जुली सरकार चलाने की जिम्मेदारी ली। बंगाल का उदाहरण भी सबको पता है। उद्दंड लीगी जिन्हें कांग्रेस अपनी तमाम आत्मसमर्पणशीलता के बावजूद खुश नहीं रख सकी, हिंदू महासभा के साथ संपर्क में आने के बाद काफी तर्कसंगत समझौतों और सामाजिक व्यवहार के लिए तैयार हो गये। और वहां की मिली-जुली सरकार मिस्टर फजलुल हक को प्रधानमंत्रित्व और महासभा के काबिल व मान्य नेता श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी के नेतृत्व में दोनों समुदाय के फायदे के लिए एक साल तक सफलतापूर्वक चली।"
[V. D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, pp. 479-480.]
सावरकर ने स्वीकार किया कि बंगाल में मुस्लिम लीग के नेतृत्व में गठित मंत्रीमंडल में हिंदू महासभा के दूसरे सब से बड़े नेता डॉ.श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी मंत्रीमंडल में उप-मुख्य थे। मुखर्जी के अधीन ही वह मंत्रालय भी था, जिसके जिम्मे भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन का दमन करना था। इस समय हिंदू महासभा और मुस्लिम लीग की साझा सरकार बंगाल और सिंध के अलावा उत्तर पश्चिम सीमा प्रांत(सरहदी सूबा) में भी थी।
READ THE WHOLE STORY...

भारत विभाजन हम ने नहीं कराया: झूठों के शहंशाह अमित शाह
झूट बोलने में माहिर आरएसएस
इस समय दुनिया का कोई भी फासीवादी संगठन दोग़ली बातें करने, उत्तेजना फैलाने और षड्यंत्र रचने में राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ (आरएसएस) को मात नहीं दे सकता। भारत के एक मशहूर अंगरेजी दैनिक ने आरएसएस के बारे में प्रख्यात लेखक जॉर्ज ऑरवेल द्वारा दिए गए शब्द 'दो मुंहा' को इस विघटनकारी संगठन के लिए कमतर बताया था, यानि आरएसएस दो मुंहा नहीं बल्कि इस से भी बढ़ कर है। 
आरएसएस के चरित्र के इस शर्मनाक पहलू का एक बार फिर खुलासा हुवा है। एसएस/भाजपा के दिग्गज नेता, देश के ग्रह-मंत्री अमित शाह जो देश के वास्तविक प्रधान मंत्री हैं ने, नागरिकता संशोधन अधिनियम 2019 को लोक सभा में पेश करते हुए, 9 दिसम्बर को कहा:
"आप जानना चाहेंगे यह क़ानून बनाना कियों ज़रूरी है। अगर कांग्रेस ने इस देश को धर्म के नाम पर न बंटवाया होता तो इस क़ानून को लाने की कोई ज़रुरत नहीं पड़ती।  यह कांग्रेस थी जिस ने देश को धर्म के आधार पर विभाजित कराया, हमने नहीं।" 
यह सफ़ेद झूठ बोलकर अमित शाह ने इतिहास की सच्चाईयों का जानबूझकर विध्वंस किया है ताकि 1947 में देश विभाजन जिसमें आधुनिक इतिहास के सब से बड़े खून-ख़राबों में से एक के असली मुजरिमों को बचाया जा सके।  हैरान करने वाली बात यह है कि अमित शाह समेत आरएसएस/भाजपा शासक टोली जो अपने आप को बीएस मुंजे, भाई परमानंद, विनायक दामोदर सावरकर, एमएस गोलवलकर और अन्य हिंदू राष्ट्रवादियों की हिन्दुत्वादी परंपरा का वारिस बताती है, आज यह दवा कर रही है की वे भारत का विभाजन नहीं चाहते थे। यह इस ऐतिहासिक सच्चाई के बावजूद कहा जा रहा है उपरोक्त हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी नायकों ने न केवल दो क़ौमी सिद्धांत की अवधारणा प्रस्तुत की बल्कि उन्होंने आक्रामक रूप से मांग की कि मुसलमानों को भारत जो हमेशा से हिंदू राष्ट्र रहा है से निकाल दिया जाए । इस टोली का आज भी विश्वास है कि हिंदू व मुसलमान दो अलग राष्ट्र हैं। भारत के राजनीतिक परिदृश्य पर जिन्नाह या मुस्लिम लीग का उद्भव होने से बहुत पहले आरएसएस के लोग, जो आज सत्तासीन हैं, सतत् यह मांग करते आए हैं कि मुसलमानों व ईसाइयों से नागरिक अधिकार छीन लिए जाने चाहिएं।

भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन 1942 से ग़द्दारी की कहानी; आरएसएस और सावरकर की ज़बानी 
कांग्रेस का आह्वान
इस 8 अगस्त 2020 को भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के एक अहम मील के पत्थर, ऐतिहासिक ‘भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन’ जिसे 'अगस्त क्रांति' भी कहा जाता है को 78 साल पूरे हो जायेंगे। 7 अगस्त 1942 को अखिल भारतीय कांग्रेस समिति ने बम्बई में अपनी बैठक में एक क्रांतिकारी प्रस्ताव पारित किया जिसमें अंग्रेज शासकों से तुरंत भारत छोड़ने की मांग की गयी थी। अंग्रेज शासन से लोहा लेने के लिए स्वयं गांधीजी ने ‘करो या मरो’ ब्रह्म वाक्य सुझाया और सरकार एवं सत्ता से पूर्ण असहयोग करने का आह्वान किया। कांग्रेस का यह मानना था कि अंग्रेज सरकार को भारत की जनता को विश्वास में लिए बिना किसी भी जंग में भारत को झोंकने का नैतिक और कानूनी अधिकार नहीं है। अंग्रेजों से भारत तुरंत छोड़ने का यह प्रस्ताव कांग्रेस द्वारा एक ऐसे नाजुक समय में लाया गया था जब दूसरे विश्वयुद्ध के चलते जापानी सेनाएं भारत के पूर्वी तट तक पहुंच चुकी थी और कांग्रेस ने अंग्रेज शासकों द्वारा सुझाई ‘क्रिप्स योजना’ को खारिज कर दिया था। ‘अंग्रेजो भारत छोड़ो’ प्रस्ताव के साथ-साथ कांग्रेस ने गांधी जी को इस आंदोलन का सर्वेसर्वा नियुक्त किया और देश के आम लोगों से आह्वान किया कि वे हिंदू-मुसलमान का भेद त्याग कर सिर्फ हिदुस्तानी के तौर पर अंग्रेजी साम्राज्यवाद से लड़ने के लिए एक हो जाएं।
READ THE WHOLE STORY.
LINKS: https://www.satyahindi.com/india/congress-participated-in-quit-india-movement-rss-backed-british-112316.html
https://hindi.sabrangindia.in/article/rss-and-savarkar-scabbing-from-quit-india-movement-since-1942
'अंग्रेज़ों भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन' के दौरान देश-भक्त हिन्दुस्तानियों की क़ुर्बानियां
भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन की घोषणा के साथ ही पूरे देश में क्रांति की एक लहर दौड़ गयी। अगले कुछ महीनों में देश के लगभग हर भाग में अंग्रेज सरकार के विरुद्ध आम लोगों ने जिस तरह लोहा लिया उससे 1857 के भारतीय जनता के पहले मुक्ति संग्राम की यादें ताजा हो गईं। 1942 के भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन ने इस सच्चाई को एक बार फिर रेखांकित किया कि भारत की आम जनता किसी भी कुर्बानी से पीछे नहीं हटती है। अंग्रेज शासकों ने दमन करने में कोई कसर नहीं छोड़ी। 9 अगस्त की सुबह से ही पूरा देश एक फौजी छावनी में बदल दिया गया। गांधीजी समेत कांग्रेस के बड़े नेताओं को तो गिरफ्तार किया ही गया दूरदराज के इलाकों में भी कांग्रेसी कार्यकर्ताओं को भयानक यातनाएं दी गईं।
सरकारी दमन और हिंसा का ऐसा तांडव देश के लोगों ने झेला जिसके उदाहरण कम ही मिलते हैं। स्वयं सरकारी आंकड़ों के अनुसार पुलिस और सेना द्वारा सात सौ से भी ज्यादा जगह गोलाबारी की गई जिसमें ग्यारह सौ से भी ज्यादा लोग शहीद हो गए। शहीदों की यह तादाद सफ़ेद झूट थी। पुलिस और सेना ने आतंक मचाने के लिए बलात्कार और कोड़े लगाने का बड़े पैमाने पर प्रयोग किया। भारत में किसी भी सरकार द्वारा इन कथकंडों का इस तरह का संयोजित प्रयोग 1857 के बाद शायद पहली बार ही किया गया था।
अंग्रेज सरकार के भयानक बर्बर और अमानवीय दमन के बावजूद देश के आम हिंदू मुसलमानों और अन्य धर्म के लोगों ने हौसला नहीं खोया और सरकार को मुंहतोड़ जवाब दिया। यह आंदोलन ‘अगस्त क्रांति’ क्यों कहलाता है इसका अंदाजा उन सरकारी आंकड़ों को जानकर लगाया जा सकता है जो जनता की इस आंदोलन में कार्यवाहियों का ब्योरा देते हैं। सरकारी आंकड़ों के अनुसार 208 पुलिस थानों, 1275 सरकारी दफ्तरों, 382 रेलवे स्टेशनों और 945 डाकघरों को जनता द्वारा नष्ट कर दिया गया। जनता द्वारा हिंसा बेकाबू होने के पीछे मुख्य कारण यह था कि पूरे देश में कांग्रेसी नेतृत्व को जेलों में डाल दिया गया था और कांग्रेस संगठन को हर स्तर पर गैर कानूनी घोषित कर दिया गया था। कांग्रेसी नेतृत्व के अभाव में अराजकता का होना बहुत गैर स्वाभाविक नहीं था। यह सच है कि नेतृत्व का एक बहुत छोटा हिस्सा गुप्त रूप से काम कर रहा था परंतु आमतौर पर इस आंदोलन का स्वरूप स्वतः स्फूर्त बना रहा।
जिन्नाह, सावरकर और आरएसएस का विरोध में अँगरेज़ सरकार के साथ आना
यह जानकर किसी को भी आश्चर्य नहीं होना चाहिए कि दमनकारी अंग्रेज सरकार का इस आंदोलन के दरम्यान जिन तत्वों और संगठनों ने प्यादों के तौर पर काम किया वे हिंदू और इस्लामी राष्ट्र के झंडे उठाए हुए थे। ये सच है कि भारतीय कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी ने भी भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन से अलग रहने का निर्णय लिया था। इसके बारे में सबको जानकारी है। लेकिन आज के देशभक्तों के नेताओं ने किस तरह से न केवल इस आंदोलन से अलग रहने का फैसला किया था बल्कि इसको दबाने में गोरी सरकार की सीधी सहायता की थी जिस बारे में बहुत कम जानकारी है।........

https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/revisiting-partition-debates

Partition debates in India drew on the League of Nations’ discussions on minorities in the nation-states created after World War I. The League’s legacy persisted beyond Partition, even making a ghost appearance in the controversy over Assam's NRC.

"The Indian Express, New Delhi. 31-08-2004
The Savarkar Debate
A DIVISIVE FIREBRAND
Kumar Ketkar (The unbearable potency of Savarkar’, IE, August 27) has not done justice to the ongoing debate on Savarkar’s role in the freedom movement by calling it “neither political nor ideological.” It is very much political and ideological given the fragmented political life that V.D. Savarkar lived. There were two markedly distinguishable phases in his political life which stood for diametrically opposite ideals. Unfortunately, votaries of Savarkarism are unable to see this difference.
Savarkar began as a revolutionary who believed in an inclusive and composite Indian nationalism. Though he remained rooted in Hindu mythology, he initially believed that India’s liberation depended on the united resolve of Hindus and Muslims. In his monumental work, The Indian war of Independence 1857 penned in 1907 in England, he warned against any feeling of animosity against Muslims. Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmi Bai, Nana Saheb, Maulvi Ahmed Shah, Tatia Tope, Bahadurshah Zafar and Begum Zeenat Mahal were described by him as national heroes.
Yet the savage incarceration in Cellular Jail broke him completely. Convinced of the invincibility of the British rule, he started writing mercy petitions to his British masters. He wrote the first one in 1911 (immediately after his arrival in the brutal jail) and second one in 1913. The latter petition addressed to the Home Member of the Government of India (November 14, 1913) apart from many other things said: “Therefore if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress…”
During his imprisonment, he kept a safe distance from companion political prisoners. He was released when Non Co-operation Movement was at its peak bringing a high watermark of Hindu-Muslim unity. The British rulers terrified by this development were looking for leaders who could dent this unity. Savarkar who had been working on his theory of Hindutva seemed to be a good option. He was released from the Cellular Jail in 1921 and then interned in Ratnagiri/Yeravda jails (from where he was finally released on January 6, 1924) on the condition that he would not indulge in any kind of political activity However, he was allowed to publish his controversial ideas of Hindu nationalism titled Hindutva (1923), claiming that only Hindus had the right to be nationals of the country and Muslims and Christians could not be part of Hindusthan. He made an unconditional promise to the British masters “to serve the Government in any capacity”, and this he fulfilled by becoming a willing tool in their hands to execute the Two-Nation theory.
Ketkar’s article makes no mention of what Savarkar did in the second phase of his political life, when he was free. For an honest appraisal of his role, we must become acquainted with his words and deeds while he was free, guiding the Hindu Mahasabha from 1937-1942. These are available under one the title Hindu Rashtra Darshan published by the Hindu Mahasabha, Maharashtra. Savarkar like Mohammed Ali Jinnah believed in the Two-Nation theory.
While delivering the presidential address to 19th Hindu Mahasabha session at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar said: “As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so...India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India”.
If Savarkar, an ardent advocate of the Two-Nation theory, can be considered an Indian nationalist, then who can stop Jinnah from claiming the same status! Hindu Mahasabha under the leadership of Savarkar played a highly dubious and divisive role in the ‘Quit India’ Movement of 1942. While large sections of India masses faced immense repression and the country was turned into a jail, Hindu Mahasabha decided to cooperate with the British rulers. In fact, he was jubilantly thankful to the British rulers for banning Congress when he said, “As soon as Congress was removed from the political field as an open organization under the government ban, the Hindu Mahasabha alone was left to take up the task of conducting whatever Indian National activities lay within its scope.” He also declared that he was not bothered about “breaking up the so-called united front against the British Imperialism.”
When Netaji and his Azad Hindu Fauj were planning to liberate the north east of the country, it was Savarkar who offered full military co-operation to the British. While addressing 23rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he said, “our best national interests demands that so far as India’s defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible and by securing an entry into all ordnance, ammunition and war craft factories…Hindu Mahasabhaits must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the military forces of all arms without losing single minute.”
There is a factual error in Ketkar’s article, regarding the relationship between Savarkar and the RSS. Ketkar writes that Savarkar “was still in jail when the RSS was formed in 1925”. In fact, Savarkar was freed in early 1924. Here’s what Dhananjay Keer, Savarkar’s biographer wrote about the close affinity between the two. “Before starting the volunteer organization known as the RSS, Dr. Hedgewar had a long discussion with Savarkar over the faith, form and future of organization” and it was “in consultation with Savarkar and others, that Hedgewar decided to build up and organization to supply the Hindu society with powers and pillars.”
[The print version carried two photographs, one of Savarkar and other one of a military drill by the RSS cadres.]
"

Faisal Devji. Muslim Zion: Pakist an as a Polit ical Idea, if we consider all recent ly adopt ed regulat ions, it is clear t hat t he manufact uring error saves plasma post modernism. Muslim Zion, based on t he st ruct ure of Maslow's pyramid, t he shift licenses civil law nucleophil.

Ahistoricity of Savarkar’s Rehabilitation Project
An aggressive campaign to rehabilitate VD Savarkar (1883-1966) as great Indian freedom fighters is under way. He is being touted as a legendary Indian nationalist, freedom fighter who spent 50 years in the Cellular Jail [CJ]. Multiple mercy petitions of his are hailed as a ruse to secure freedom in order to work for uprooting the British rule, last but not the least, he is glorified as a rationalist who fought against the Untouchability. 
Let us compare these claims with the writings of Savarkar and records of his activities available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha in order to know the truth.
PLEASE READ THE WHOLE PAPER...

https://www.sabrangindia.in/article/historicity-savarkars-rehabilitation-project

RSS/BJP BHARAT RATNA NOMINEE SAVARKAR JOINED HANDS WITH BRITISH MASTERS IN CRUSHING QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
The Quit India Movement (QIM) also known as ‘August Kranti' (August Revolution) was a nation-wide Civil Disobedience Movement for which a call was given on August 7, 1942 by the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee. It was to begin on August 9 as per Gandhi's call to 'Do or Die' in his Quit India speech delivered in Bombay at the Gowalia Tank Maidan on August 8. Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas.
The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence, many shot by the police and army. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the crime that they were holding Tricolour publically. Even before that a terrible massacre took place in Mysore where the armed forces of Mysore Raja who was very close to Hindu Mahasabha and RSS shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting Tricolour.
It is to be noted that after declaring Congress an anti-national and unlawful organization, the British masters allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function. The Hindutva camp ganged up to serve the British masters. They not only opposed QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge. In this connection, shocking documents are available; these should be read to be believed.

RSS/BJP ने फ़िलहाल अपने अव्वल नंबर के देशभक्त 'वीर' सावरकर की स्तुति काफ़ी हद तक कम करदी है। इस की सब से बड़ी वजह यह है की इस 'वीर' की असली कहानी दुनिया के सामने आगई है ।[i] हिंदुत्व के इस 'वीर' ने अंग्रेज़ हुक्मरानों से एक बार नहीं बल्कि पांच बार (1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 और 1 920 में) रिहाई पाने के लिए माफ़ी-नामे लिखे जिन में अपने क्रांतिकारी इतिहास के लिए माफ़ी मांगी और आगे अंग्रेज़ी राज का वफ़ादार बने रहने का आश्वासन दिया। अंग्रेज़ हकूमत ने इस 'वीर' के माफ़ी-नामों को स्वीकारते हुवे 50 साल की क़ैद में से 37 साल की कटौती कर दी।

हिंदुत्व टोली के नए 'देश-भक्त'  डॉ श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी (1901-1953) हैं। वे स्वतंत्रता-पूर्व हिन्दू-महासभा में सावरकर के बाद सब से अहम नेता थे और यह मानते थे की हिन्दुस्तान केवल हिन्दुओं के लिए है। वे 1944 में हिन्दू-महासभा के मुखिया भी रहे। आज़ादी के बादवे देश के पहले अंतरिम  मंत्री मंडल, जिस के मुखिया जवाहरलाल नेहरू थे, में उद्योग और रसद मंत्री थे। उन्हों ने अप्रैल 1950 में नेहरू से पाकिस्तान से किस तरह के सम्बन्ध हूँ पर विरोध होने की वजह से इस्तीफ़ा दे दिया था। इस्तीफ़े के बाद उनहूँ ने आरएसअस का हाथ थाम लिया और उस के आदेश पर आरएसअस के  एक राजनैतिक अंग, भारतीय जन संघ की स्थापना की और इस के पहले अधियक्ष भी बने। उनकी  मृत्यु 23 जून 1953 को श्रीनगर, जम्मू व कश्मीर के एक जेल में हुई जहां उन्हें उस क्षेत्र में प्रवेश निषेध आदेश के बावजूद दाख़िल होने के लिए गिरफ़्तार करके रख्खा गया था। 

2015 तक इन की मृत्यु  के दिन को 'दधारा 370 समाप्त करो दिवस' और 'कश्मीर बचाओ दिवस'.के रूप में मनाया जाता था लेकिन इस साल (2016 में) इन का दर्जा बढ़ा कर इन्हें देश का 'एक निस्स्वार्थ देशभक्त' (A Selfless Patriot of India) घोषित करदिया गया। डॉ श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी कितने महान 'निस्स्वार्थ देशभक्त' थे इसे पर्खने के लिए हमें निम्नलिखित सच्चाइयों पर ग़ौर करना होगा।

FILLING IN THE KNOWLEDGE GAPS (Review of Muslims Against Partition in The Statesman by Moinuddin Ahmad)
Religious minorities in many post-colonial states have been subjected to " othering " while being blamed for the socio-political muddle experienced by the majority community. The circumstances under which these states got rid of their colonisers are remembered for sheer unrest and bloodshed that resulted in the remapping and reshaping of their territories. The Partition of India left behind images and memories of violence borne by both Hindus and Muslims and with the creation of Pakistan, Muslims in India were held solely responsible for dividing one-fifth of humanity into two separate dominions. Of course, a large section of Muslims desired to live in a separate country, but at the other end of the spectrum there was a considerable number of them who rejected the idea of a state derived from religious nationalism. Muslims who chose to stay back in India suffered a two-way setback. While mourning the absence of loved ones who had left for Pakistan, some of their Indian compatriots accused them of nurturing extraterritorial loyalty. For the majority groups, they have always remained " Pakistanis " and their neighbourhoods " mini-Pakistans ". The carving out of Pakistan from the northwest and eastern part of undivided India and making it a Muslim majority country was undeniably sought by a section of the erstwhile Muslim leadership led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But historians have noted the strong opposition by Muslims who opposed the legitimacy and raison d'être of Pakistan. Who were these Muslims and why were they opposing the Partition? To what extent did they succeed in convincing their community members to stay back in India? What were their relations with the erstwhile Hindu leaders? Should they be called “nationalist” or patriotic Muslims? Shamsul Islam has made a sincere effort to find answers to these questions in this book.

This article discusses the role of the Muslim League leaders in the establishment of Pakistan and changes in the party's policies in the course of its battle for a
separate homeland for South Asia's Muslims.
Scholars of modern South Asian history have not done the Muslim League as much as they have done the Indian National Congress. In Japanese specially, there is very little literature that treats the Muslim League as a main player in the end-game of empire in South Asia. At times, Japanese books on modern South Asian History do not carry any detailed analysis of the politics of the Muslim League and its activities during the British colonial period, so crucial to the emergence of in dependent nation-states in the region.
This article will seek to explore the relationship between leaders and policies in the Muslim League. It will do so through a close reading of the records of the party's annual meetings. These records are available in S.S. Pirzada (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan: All-India Muslim League Documents, 1906-1947, vols.1-3, Karachi, 1969. The article will focus on the leaders' home-states. Pakistan was established in the Muslim-majority states. The Muslim League, however, had been steered by leaders from Muslim-minority provinces ever since its foundation. Jinnah who advocated "the two nation theory" and Liyaqat Ali Khan who supported Jinnah as a right-hand man came from Muslim-minority states. The article will demonstrate how leaders from the Muslim-minority areas won their demand for Pakistan and briefly mention the problems they faced in the newly-created country on account of a lack of mass base.
My findings are as follows. Pakistan was achieved not because the Qaid-e Azam demonstrated especially charismatic leadership but a number of high-and-middle level functionaries of the League, belonging to Muslim-minority provinces, threw their weight behind Jinnah. This also means Jinnah did not 'oppress' League members with his opinion and that the party's policies were decided by members rather than by Jinnah alone. Although the Pakistan movement spread across the whole of India and was not confined to the Pakistan area, and the new country was created in the Muslim-majority states, the idea of the necessity of Pakistan was born in the Muslim-minority provinces.
The activities of leaders in Muslim minority-states could gather many supporters through out India because they could explain their fear when Hindu governments would be established in their states. Jinnah did not abandon the Muslims in Muslim minority-states against the advise from Iqbal because he was aware of that. Both the lands of Muslim majority states and the fear from Muslim minority-states could make Pakistan come true.
However, this situation would become a serious problem for the growth in Pakistan. In order to establish Pakistan The Muslim League tried to get supports form other parties in Muslim majority-states. Actually, the power of the Muslim League did not penetrate through out these states. The Muslim League could not administer newly established Pakistan smoothly, for example to start democratic government, because it did not have any leaders who had great support in these states. The Muslim league leadership was formed as a result of a kind of migration from Muslim minority-areas in India.
We can not neglect the political implication of the difference between the places of origin of the Muslim League leaders and the country of immigration where their leadership was to be put into policies when we think about nation-building in the post-independence of Pakistan.

I am glad to announce the publication of Bengali version of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA.
This book is presently available in English, Hindi, Urdu and Bengali.
1. Muslims Against Partition of India: The Untold Story of Allah Bakhsh and Other Patriotic Muslims (3rd  Edition)
INR 280.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172210922/
2.भारत-विभाजन विरोधी मुसलमान (Hindi) Bharat-Vibhajan Virodhi Musalmaan  (1st Edition)
INR 300.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211066/
3. Taqseem-e-Hind Ke Mukhalif Musalmaan (Urdu) تقسیمِ ہند کے مخالف مسلمان
INR 350.00
https://pharosmedia.com/books/product/9788172211073/
4. Bharat Bhang Virodhi Muslim Janmat (Bengali edition of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA)
INR 300.00