Has anyone here read Ambedkar's book "Pakistan, or, The Partition of India"?

Aug 2019
140
United States
#31
It's quite interesting that, as a result of partition, the Muslims in Sindh replaced their Hindu overclass with a new Muhajir overclass.
Muhajirs are not an overclass and certainly not after Bhutto's reforms in the 70s. Today in interior Sindh the ruling class is composed of landowning Sindhi Muslims mainly from Sindhi-Baloch, Rajput and Pir families - they're extremely wealthy and influential and have held the provinical government for decades and were part of the federal govt as recently as the Zardari presidency. After Bhutto introduced a quota system in the 70s, the vast majority of provinicial and federal jobs in Sindh go to Sindhis in fact it's a running joke that if you're Sindhi you know at least somebody in your family that works for the government. The Muhajir generation that did make up most of the bureacracy in the 50s and 60s have died out or retired. Bhutto's reforms also introduced a quota system in the education sector in Sindh, ensuring people from rural Sindh getting priority admission in public universities in the province. Also while Hindu Sindhis made up most of the business class prior to partition and held a lot of power over Sindhi Muslims, the landed elite of Sindh were still Sindhi Muslims belonging to the tribes I mentioned earlier. Even to this day there is a big wealth gap between poor Sindhis and the landed elite aka the Wadera class
Yes but Mujahirs were educated elites, not entrepreneurs like Sindhi Hindus, their forced displacement had a huge impact on the economy of the newly independent Pakistan.
Educated elites are less capable of contributing to economic growth?

Also, Pakistan's loss was India's gain here. :)
While the exodus of Sindhi Hindu merchants did have an impact on Sindh's economy early on, they were substituted by a large migration of Memon, Ismaili and Bohra Muslims to Karachi and Hyderabad among other cities in interior Sindh in fact I would go as far to say that there was a bigger net migration towards Sindh. Today most of the major businesses in Karachi are owned and run by Memons and Ismailis, they've made a huge contribution to Sindh and Pakistan's economy. Many of them opposed Bhutto's nationalization policies in the 70s as it impacted their businesses but fortunately it didn't have any long-term adverse effects. A part from the migration of mercantile Gujarati Muslims to Sindh, there has also been a migration of mercantile class Punjabis and Pashtuns to urban Sindh. A lot of businesses are run in Karachi by Khatris from Chiniot, Punjab - the Chinioti Sheikh community has had a big impact on Karachi and urban Sindh's economy. Then you have the Pashtuns in Sindh who run most of the small businesses such as brick and mortar stores. So I'd say Sindh has fully recovered economically since the partition.

Yes but their hate for Hindus surpasses every loss.
We don't hate Hindus except for a loud minority, especially not in Sindh. There's a recent documentary called "Sindhustan" produced by an Indian woman with Sindhi ancestry, she talks about the migration of Hindus from Sindh to India and she in the documentary she said there wasn't any badblood between Hindu and Muslim Sindhis, in fact Sindh did not see the violence that Punjab and northern India did.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
140
United States
#32
Next to Jinnah was Liaquat Ali Khan, who was strongly for formation of a separate Pakistan.

Liaquat had moved the Pakistan Resolution in 1940 in AIML. Then he became 1st Prime Minister of Pakistan (1947-1951). After death of Jinnah in 1948, he became President of Pakistan Muslim League. However, he was assassinated by a Pathan in 1951. While the motive is debated, I presume it was because Pathans were not happy about being forced to join Pakistan.
Liaqat Ali Khan wasn't actually murdered by a Pakistani Pashtun but in fact an Afghan national, Said Akbar Babrak.
Saad Akbar Babrak - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2019
140
United States
#33
Sindhi nationalists actually resent that because nothing changed for them, the Muhajirs flooded their cities and Sindhi identity was erased from Karachi and Hyderabad, Sindhi Muslims forever remained poor and seen as inferior people by Muhajirs. Many Sindhi Nationalists even support Raja Dahir, the last Hindu king of Sindh who was defeated by Arabs in 712 AD. But the other Pakistanis are indifferent to flight of Hindu entrepreneurs from Sindh.
I'm afraid that's a very oversimplistic view of Sindh's history and present. What has changed for Sindhis is that the feudal Sindhi elite have a lot of political powers, they are extremely rich and pretty much dominate any election in Sindh and all government owned institutions in the province. Saying the Sindhi Muslims are poor is a broad generalization because it ignores the various caste, tribal and class stratifications that exists within the Sindhi community. The comment about "Muhajirs" viewing Sindhis as inferior is also a generalization, both communities can be/are racist towards each other but for the most part it isn't bad as you're making it out to be and I say this as somebody that has family in both communities - that's as broad a generalization as saying all north indians and south indians hate each other or that all marathis hate biharis, in real life most ordinary people don't hold such extreme views and get along just fine.

As for the Mohammad Bin Qasim/Raja Dahir episode in Sindh's history, I think we as south Asians tend to oversimplify our history. It isn't as clear as black and white. No invader can successfully overthrow the ruling class/monarch without local support whether it's America needing Kurdish and Shia support in Iraq or Northern Alliance support in Afghanistan or whether it's the British needing support from various local Indian communities/kingdoms to overthrow the larger ones as there was a lot of infighting after the collapse of the Mughal empire. In the case of Sindh, the Arab Bin Qasim benefited from the resentment Sindhi Rajputs and lower castes + Buddhists had against Raja Dahir - a Brahmin king, it was these Rajputs that helped dethrone Dahir. It is no coincidence that majority of upper class Sindhi Muslims come from a Rajput background - the Bhuttos, Junejos, Khuhros, Rajpars etc are also Muslim Rajputs and they benefitted the most from regime change. Also quite suprisingly many of the Sindhi nationalists that do hail Raja Dahir as a son of the soil are from Muslim communities that claim Arab ancestry such as the Shahs and Syeds of Sindh. GM Syed was the most prominent Sindhi nationalist and he comes from a family that claims descent from Arab sufis that came to Sindh. So I'd suggest not to oversimplify and generalize the history of Sindh and the rest of the subcontinent. This is after all a history forum so we should all keep an open mind.

Peace.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2015
1,106
India
#36
Liaqat Ali Khan wasn't actually murdered by a Pakistani Pashtun but in fact an Afghan national, Said Akbar Babrak.
Saad Akbar Babrak - Wikipedia
Why was Liaquat Ali Khan assassinated?

The assassin was not a "Pakistani" Pashtun, but reference given by you says he was an "ultra-Pashtun nationalist". [1] The fact that he was an Afghan is not so important because Pashtuns have a strong sense of ancient identity to which borders like Pakistan-Afghanistan do not matter. They do not matter even today.

Pashtuns in Pakistan were against joining Pakistan. Their leader during independence struggle was Abdul Ghaffar Khan. When Gandhi and Congress agreed to partition, which would effectively force them into Pakistan, the following were his words:

"You have thrown us to the wolves." [2]​

After independence in 1947, Pakistan government put Abdul Ghaffar Khan in jail where he was most probably tortured. In was in & out of jail, or under house arrest from 1948 till his death in 1988. Here are Khan's words, stated in Pakistan assembly, on his experience in jail:

"I had to go to prison many a time in the days of the Britishers. Although we were at loggerheads with them, yet their treatment was to some extent tolerant and polite. But the treatment which was meted out to me in this Islamic state of ours was such that I would not even like to mention it to you." [2]​

The point is that the assassin (Saad Akbar Babrak) was a Pashtun, the tribe has a history of dislike for non-Pathan Muslims at least from the days of Mughal Empire, Pashtuns did not want to join Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan state was persecuting a large section of the Pashtuns (led by Abdul Ghaffar Khan); and in my view this provided the motivation for assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan.



[1]Saad Akbar Babrak - Wikipedia

[2] Abdul Ghaffar Khan - Wikipedia
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,934
SoCal
#38
Why was Liaquat Ali Khan assassinated?

The assassin was not a "Pakistani" Pashtun, but reference given by you says he was an "ultra-Pashtun nationalist". [1] The fact that he was an Afghan is not so important because Pashtuns have a strong sense of ancient identity to which borders like Pakistan-Afghanistan do not matter. They do not matter even today.

Pashtuns in Pakistan were against joining Pakistan. Their leader during independence struggle was Abdul Ghaffar Khan. When Gandhi and Congress agreed to partition, which would effectively force them into Pakistan, the following were his words:

"You have thrown us to the wolves." [2]​

After independence in 1947, Pakistan government put Abdul Ghaffar Khan in jail where he was most probably tortured. In was in & out of jail, or under house arrest from 1948 till his death in 1988. Here are Khan's words, stated in Pakistan assembly, on his experience in jail:

"I had to go to prison many a time in the days of the Britishers. Although we were at loggerheads with them, yet their treatment was to some extent tolerant and polite. But the treatment which was meted out to me in this Islamic state of ours was such that I would not even like to mention it to you." [2]​

The point is that the assassin (Saad Akbar Babrak) was a Pashtun, the tribe has a history of dislike for non-Pathan Muslims at least from the days of Mughal Empire, Pashtuns did not want to join Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan state was persecuting a large section of the Pashtuns (led by Abdul Ghaffar Khan); and in my view this provided the motivation for assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan.



[1]Saad Akbar Babrak - Wikipedia

[2] Abdul Ghaffar Khan - Wikipedia
Did you ever consider the possibility that Khan's assassin was a support of having Afghanistan annex the Pashtun-majority areas of Pakistan?
 
Likes: Rajeev

Similar History Discussions