Tag Archives: Hindu


On 20 October 1875 a son was born to Mithibai and Jenabhai in Karachi, who was named Mahomedalli Jinnahbhai. His birth certificate and school records show his name as Mahomedalli Jinnahbhai, and his date of birth was recorded as 20th October, 1875. He later on changed it to 25th December, 1876, not sure what was the reason behind it. Jinnah’s family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shia Islam, though Jinnah later converted to Twelver Shia Islam. The Khoja, as it is recognised are converts from the Hindu caste Lohana. 

The image of Mohammed Ali Jinnah was painted of a prophet in my younger days, extreme Islamic forces portrayed him as a Muslim who wanted a pure Islamic State, and the opposite don’t even consider him even a Muslim, because of his western lifestyle, who remained committed to his three-piece suits, his King’s English, and no political language that invoked religion. I personally disagree with both.  As I grew older perception kept on evolving about him, but my interest in Jinnah sahab begun after reading Stanley Wolpert’s book Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was always a follower of Jinnah and would often discuss his ideology with his roommates, during his days at Berkley University. He termed Mohammed Ali Jinnah as his ideal.  

Jinnah studied at several schools: he spent three and half years at the Sindh-Madrasa-tul-Islam in Karachi; briefly at the Gokal Das Tej Primary School in Bombay; and finally at the Christian Missionary Society High School in Karachi. In 1892, upon the advice of Fredrick Leigh Croft, Jinnah was sent to London to learn intricacies of shipping; Croft had assured him apprenticeship in London. Before leaving for London he was married to Emibai who died after a year when he was in London. 

While doing his apprenticeship he developed an interest in Law. He sat for admission tests for the Bar and in June 1893 he was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn. According to one of the account, Jinnah chose Lincoln’s because one of the wall at one end of New Hall, also called the Great Hall, which is where students, Bar, and Bench lunch and dine is a mural depicting the image of PROPHET MOHAMMED and other lawgivers of the world.

It was at Lincoln’s where he changed the spellings of his name, removed bhai from his name and adopted Jinnah, and then on to Mahomed Alli Jinnah, and through this transitional period he dropped second “l” from Alli, and later adopting additional “m” to Mahomed, leading finally to Mohammed Ali Jinnah, which remained for the rest of the life.

I have always been a hero worshipper, he said once referring to Dadabhai Naoroji who was elected to the House of Commons in July 1892. Jinnah became a regular visitor of House of Commons where he used to follow the proceedings of the House. Once Jinnah spoke to his sister, when I learnt that Lord Sainsbury had ridiculed Dadabhai in one of his speech as a black man, I was furious. If Dadabhai was black, I was blacker, and if this was the mentality of our political masters, then we could never get a fair deal at their hands. From that day I have been an uncompromising enemy of all forms of colour bar. I worked for Dadabhai for vengeance.

Jinnah’s professional career begun at the Bombay Bar, he enrolled as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court at the age of 24. Soon he was admitted to the chambers of John Molesworth Macpherson, then the acting advocate-general of Bombay, this was the first of its kind ever extended to an Indian. In 1900 Jinnah got the prestigious opportunity to join as presidency magistrate. Jinnah’s political journey began when he joined Anjuman- e-Islami on his return from Britain. Badruddin Tyabji, a judge of the Bombay High Court headed the Anjuman, who became Jinnah’s Muslim mentor.

Jinnah had commenced legal practice when racial prejudice and discrimination against Indians in the bar was widely evident, but only on the strength of his capabilities, he won a handsome practice. He was a self-educated, a self-made man. He had not the assets of birth, linage or social status that most other barristers had. 

When he appeared before the Public Service Commission in March 1913, he was asked by Lord Islington, It has been represented to me that difficulties might arise if you put a Hindu in charge of Muslim population. Do you think that a Hindu who got a few more marks than an educated and Influential Muslim would make a better administrator when he was in charge of a population which was largely Muslims?Jinnah replied that in that case you will be doing the greatest injustice to the Hindu. I don’t see why a Hindu should not be in charge of a district where the majority happens to be Muslim.

Percival Spear writes in, Jinnah the creator of Pakistan: To personal integrity, devotion to principles must be added courage, an absence of petty thought or motives.

Hector Bolitho in Quest if Jinnah writes; Jinnah was a source of power, a cold rationalist in politics, he had one track mind, with great force behind it; Jinnah was potentially kind, but in behaviour extremely cold and distant. For Jinnah, a secondary status was galling, what he has always sought and mostly attained was the centre stage.

Jinnah’s contribution towards united stand for Congress-Muslim League was significant. He endeavoured and succeeded in creating an ideological unity between the Muslim League and Congress. Amongst the other contributory causes, it was also the unstated pressure exerted by the united Congress-League stand.

Why Jinnah is my hero? There are hundreds of reasons, but his 14 points, and his principled stand like one at the first Round Table conference at House of Lords, Deepak Natarajan quoted The Manchester Guardian in his book, Jinnah’s fatal handicap; Mr Jinnah’s position at the Round Table Conference was unique.

The Hindus thought he was a Muslim communalist, the Muslims took him to be a pro-Hindu, the Prince deemed him to be too DEMOCRATIC. The British considered him a rabid extremist with the result that he was everywhere but nowhere.None wanted him.

Jinnah reflected himself on his role at the conference in a later public speech at Lahore on 2 March, 1936:

I displeased the Muslims. I displeased my Hindu friends because of the famous 14 points. I displeased the Prince because I was deadly against their underhand activities, and I displeased the British Parliament because I felt RIGHT from the beginning and I rebelled against it, and said it was all a fraud. Within a few weeks I did not have a friend left there.

And the concluding quote from Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah confirmed the above statement and my faith in his unbiased principle throughout his struggle of independence, whether it was for United India or Independent Pakistan:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Because of his Khoja background, Sarojni Naidu said in 1917, that Jinnah was a Hindu by race and Muslim by religion.

Aurangzeb: The Vanquisher

There are two opposite sides of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir;I would like to present both sides briefly before coming to a conclusion.

A Ferocious villain:

In 1660 Aurangzeb emerged as the undisputed Emperor of Hindustan. He outmanoeuvred his three brothers, Dara Shukoh, Shah Shuja, and Murad. He executed two of his brothers, driven the third out of Hindustan, and locked away his ill father Shah Jahan in Agra’s Red Fort. He had Sarmad Kashani arrested and beheaded, who was accused and convicted of atheism and unorthodox religious practice. He also punished those he believed had helped Shivaji escape. He had the Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur executed for taking up arms against the Mughal state. During his princely years he targeted the Ismaili Bohras, harassed them throughout his reign as king, and executed the 32nd Absolute Missionary of theDawoodi Bohra sect of Islam Syedna Qutubkhan Qutubuddin.Throughout his reign Aurangzeb crushed rebellions, waged wars of expansion.

Abul Hasan Qutb Shah, the last ruler of the Qutb Shahi dynasty refused to surrender. He and his servicemen fortified themselves at Golconda and fiercely protected the Kollur Mine, which was then probably the world’s most productive diamond mine, and an important economic asset. Aurangzeb and his army managed to penetrate the walls by capturing a gate prompting the army and the ruler to surrender peacefully and hand over the Nur ul Ain Diamond, Great Stone Diamond, Kara Diamond, Darya-e-Nur, making the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb the richest monarch in the world.

Aurangzeb changed the name of one of Hinduism’s holiest cities, Banaras, to Muhammadabad. After the Jaat rebellion in Mathura, Aurangzeb ordered the city’s Kesava Deo temple demolished. In 1679, he ordered destruction of several prominent temples that had become associated with his enemies, including those of Khandela, Udaipur, Chittor and Jodhpur. He ordered the destruction of Vishvanath Temple at Varanasi for being a centre of conspiracy against the state, and he ordered the destruction of the Jama Masjid at Golkonda after finding out that its ruler had built the mosque in order to hide revenues from the state. Aurangzeb robust festivities on Nauruz, cancellation of Eid celebrations on a grand scale, curbed the boisterous festivity associated with Holi, Diwali and Muharram. He once chastised his son Muazzam for participating in Nauruz festival. At times Aurangzeb persecuted specific Muslim groups whose doctrines ran afoul of his vision of Islam. He ordered Bohra mosques to hold five prayers. Nobody knows the exact numbers of temples demolished on Aurangzeb’s order. He introduced jizya in 1679 in response to several events shortly before its introduction: the great Rajput rebellion, the Maratha alliance with the Shia Golconda.

A Pious King:

Initially, Aurangzeb’s cultural and courtly activities followed earlier Mughal kings. He upheld many Mughal practices derived from Hindu customs. He appeared daily to his subjects in the palace window to give auspicious glimpse. On his birthdays he was publicly weighed in gold and silver, which was reportedly cancelled after few years. He erected a monumental tomb Bibi ka Maqbara in Aurangabad for his first wife, Dilras Bano Begum.

Aurangzeb built more temples than he destroyed. He allowed the repair and maintenance of existing temples, and even made generous donations of jagirs to many temples to gain the goodwill of his Hindu subjects. There are several orders in his name, supporting temples and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples, among others.

He memorised Quran and sewed prayer caps and copied the Quran by his own hands. He prayed with greater regularity than his forefathers, and abstained from alcohol and opium.At different points he tried to bar the alcohol, opium, prostitution, gambling, and public celebrations of religious festivals. Aurangzeb compiled the Fatawa e Alamgiri, a synthesis of Hanafi legal judgements, and was among the few monarchs to have fully established Sharia law and Islamic economics throughout the Indian subcontinent. He sponsored the construction of Badshahi Mosque Lahore at the time it was built; it was the largest mosque in the world. Aurangzeb felt that verses from the Quran should not be stamped on coins, as done in former times, because they were constantly touched by the hands and feet of people.

Aurangzeb’s sovereign bureaucracy employed more Hindus than that of his predecessors. Between 1679 and 1707, the number of Hindu officials in the Mughal administration rose by half, many of them Marathas and Rajputs. His increasing employment of Hindus and Shia Muslims was deemed controversial at the time, with several of his fellow Sunni Muslim officials petitioning against it, which he rejected, and responded, “What connection have earthly affairs with religion? And what right have administrative works to meddle with bigotry? ‘For you is your religion and for me is mine. He insisted on employment based on ability rather than religion.(Aurangzeb by Audrey Truschke)


Aurangzeb struck hard against enemies who threatened the integrity or peace of the Mughal state, no matter their status or religion. He was not anti-Hinduism, Sikhism, or Shi’ism. Ram Puniyani states that Aurangzeb was not fanatically anti-Hindu, but rather continuously adapted his policies depending on circumstances. I totally reject the claim that he wanted to convert all Hindus and Sikhs to Muslims. If that was the case he would’ve accepted/acknowledged Ottoman Empire, instead he helped the rebellions and offered them asylum in his Kingdom. If he was against Shias, he wouldn’t have invited the most famous Shia scholar Mullah Baqar Majlisi of recent history to his kingdom thrice. I personally believe that they liked each other because of their common views about the implementation of Sharia and disagreements with Sufiism. Aurangzeb’s incursions into the Pashtun areas were described by Khushal Khan Khattak as Black is the Mughal’s heart towards all of us Pathans. Pashtuns were not Hindus or Sikhs, they were Muslims. Forget the brothers he did not even spare his own son. He was brutal, barbarous, callous and merciless to his enemies. He simply didn’t like any opposition against him. He was a notable expansionist who was widely feared not respected. The conquest of Shia Golconda by 1689, Mughal victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to 4 million square kilometres. But the supremacy was short-lived.

Deathbed notes:

I know not who I am, where I shall go, or what will happen to this sinner full of sins. . . . My years have gone by profitless. God has been in my heart, yet my darkened eyes have not recognized his light. . . . There is no hope for me in the future. The fever is gone, but only the skin is left. … I have greatly sinned, and know not what torments await me. . . .


The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim. The genocides of 2.7 to 3 million Polish Jews and 1.8 to 2.77 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles. The systematic killing of the Christian Ottoman Greek population carried out in Anatolia during World War I and its aftermath (1914–1922) on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. Five thousand Yazidi civilians were killed during what has been called a forced conversion campaign being carried out by ISIL in Northern Iraq. At least 6,700 Rohingya, were killed in the month after the violence broke out. At least 288 villages were partially or totally destroyed by fire in northern Rakhine state after August 2017. According to UN reports, over 700,000 Rohingya people had fled and took shelter in neighbouring Bangladesh as refugees as of September 2018.

All the above mentioned crimes were committed using religion, Christians, Muslims, and even Buddhist. For the last few years BJP government is quite actively engaged in such activities against minorities in India and Kashmir.

A couple of weeks ago I used the term “Hindutva” on a lighter mode referring to a political incident. Unfortunately my comment offended my Hindu followers and friends on social media inside and outside Pakistan. I always try my level best not to write anything which hurt the feelings of anyone. Hence I decided to write about the importance of the issue to understand the problem; hence it is important for the audience to understand what Hinduism is:

Hinduism is both a civilisation and a congregation of religions; it has neither a beginning, nor a founder, nor a central authority, or organisation. One can be a believer in one God, or multiplicity of Gods or even none at all. Hinduism does not expel much less crucify alleged non-believers. Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines. It has no organisation, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognised jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu. It embraces a range of doctrines and practices, from pantheism to agnosticism and religious belief in reincarnation to belief in cast system. Hinduism recognizes that the truth is plural, that there is no one correct answers to the big question of creation. A Catholic is a Catholic because he believes Jesus was the Son of the God, and in the conceptions of virgin birth. A Muslim must believe that there is no God but God and Muhammad is his Prophet. A Jew cherishes his Torah; simply there is no Hindu equivalent to any of these beliefs. Hinduism maintains that all ways of belief are equally valid. Hinduism incorporates almost all varieties of belief and worship within it, there is no need to choose or reject others. . There is, however, one key difference. Hinduism is a plural tradition, as compared to Christianity and Islam which possess well defined universal creedal formulations.

Therefore, Hindu “fundamentalism” is remarkably thin in terms of religious content as compared to Christianity and Islam. The Hindu thought of God to Hindu is; God is everywhere, a bearing and an absence, within us and outside us. God transcends both time and distance. God has no beginning and no end, but equally has no form and no form. God can thus be imagined, since there in nowhere that God is not, and nowhere that God cannot be. Hindus therefore understand that all worship of God reflects an attempt to reach out to that which cannot be touched or seen; since God is, in that sense, literally unknowable, one may imagine Him/Her/It in any form, since each form may be just as valid as another and none can be guaranteed to be more accurate than the next one. Hinduism is both a civilisation and a congregation of religions. Throughout India’s ancient history, the word Hindu was never meant to denote religion. It was a geographic and cultural term used by the Greeks, Persians and Arabs, derived from the Sanskrit Sindhu, to describe the people living by and beyond the river Sindhu or Indus.

The Chief Justice Gajendragadkar wrote for the Supreme Court of India (AIR 1966 SC 1127), that Hinduism is impossible to define. The court adopted Radhakrishnan’s submission that Hinduism is complex and the theist and atheist, the sceptic and agnostic, may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu system of culture and life. The Court judged that Hinduism historically has had an inclusive nature and it may “broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more”. All it means is, the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, and by no means anti-minority or anti Muslim potion.

The Supreme Court of India in 1995 ruled that Ordinarily, HINDUTVA is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism… it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption… that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion. Hindutva is not hostility to any organised religion nor does it proclaim its superiority of any religion to another. It is the shield of security and freedom for all religious minorities in India.

“However the BJP officially adopted HINDUTVA as its ideology in its 1989 resolution. The BJP claims that Hindutva represents cultural nationalism and its conception of Indian nationhood, but not a religious or theocratic concept. Hinduism is the name given to the most ancient and persistent religion on the Indian subcontinent, and Hindutva is the name by which the ideology of the Hindu right, represented by the political party Bharatiya Janata Party, is known. It is also the ideology of the cultural body known as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which was founded in 1925 and with which the BJP has strong links. Ever since the rise of the BJP on the Indian political scene from 1990 onward, and its recent successes in national elections in India in 2014 and 2019, the question of the relationship between Hinduism as a religion and Hindutva as a political ideology has come to the fore, because the word “Hindu” is common to both“.  Association for Asian Studies

I hope I have managed to explain the difference between Hindutva and the term Hindutva used for political gains by BJP in India, I would like to apologise to anyone who was and still offended because of the use of the term. And I would like to thank you Veengas for making me realise to re-visit my thoughts on the issue.

May the indigenous land of Sindh will always remain peaceful for Sindhus and the rest.

Nothing is sacred…..

A lot has been penned since the suicide attack outside Lal Shahbaz Qalendar’s Shrine on Thursday last week and much more should be written to denounce the ISIS mindset who is critical of rituals performed at the shrines, and is viewed as heretical by some hardline groups.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said;
This is an attack on Pakistan’s future.

Sehwan Sharif is one of the oldest towns of Sindh. It is highly respected in Sindh because of resting place of the great mystic poet Syed Mohammad Usman Marvandi known as Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, who preached religious tolerance among people of many religious, especially Muslims and Hindus and therefore his mysticism attracted people from many religions. He was called Lal after his usual red attire. His shrine is a true synthetic place, where Hindus and Muslims are as welcome and worship together. One of my acquaintances told me that hereditary guardian of the tomb is still a Hindu. It is narrated that there was a Shiva lingam right there in the shrine until the 1970s. All these Hindu legends and beliefs have come together with the religious belief of the Muslims to create a truly extraordinary place. It is a habitat where different religious identities are embraced.

William Dalrymple spent some time at the Lal Shahbaz Qalandar shrine in Sehwan, meeting devotees and dervishes to understand the syncretic culture of the Sufis. In his book, Nine Lives, he describes the shrine as;

“A place where for once you saw religion acting to bring people together, not to separate them”.

In recent history the ideology of Extremism and bombing the Shrines started from Najaf. On 29 August 2003 a massive car bomb rocked the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf soon after Friday prayers, which claimed the lives 124 including one of Shiite top cleric Ayatullah Mohammad Baqar Al Hakeem who returned to Iraq after living in exile in Iran for 20 years. The bombing was the most virulent attack in Iraq in 2003. Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS follows a rigidly austere threat of Islam that believes shrines are inverse to Islam and should be demolished. To further their ideology of anti-shrines second major attack was carried on 22 February 2006 on Imam Askari’s Shrine, which shattered the golden dome of one of Iraq’s most revered Shiite shrines.


On 29 March 2016 at least 72 people were wiped out in a suicide blast that took place in Lahore’s crowded Gulshan-I-Iqbal park. The powerful blast ripped through a massive crowded area of the park. Witnesses stated the crowd included a large number of Christian families celebrating Easter. Easter Sunday was supposed to be special. After going to church services, families gathered in the vast Gulshan-e-Iqbal park. Most of the victims were from Lahore’s beleaguered Christian community.

On 22 June 2016 Pakistan’s most respected musicians Amjad Farid Sabri, celebrated for devotional Qawalis from a century-old mystic tradition, was gunned down near his Liaqatabad residence. But both the music, and the shrines at which it is often performed, have long been a target for religious conservatives who despise all forms of music and consider the shrines eccentric and un-Islamic.


Whether it is an attempt on the Imam Ali Shrine in Iraq or Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sehwan or the loss of uncounted precious lives, nothing is sacrosanct to any hardline Islamists. The incorrigible behavior that Pakistan is seeing today is nowhere near the antiquated devotional attitudes and tolerant sentiments of the homeland. This is an attempt on a Pakistan’s pluralistic history, the attack on Lal Shahbaz Qalandar has once again demonstrated that the militants consider pluralistic Islam a threat to their own version of Islam. 305 people have been killed in 10 different attacks on Shrines since 2005.

We are not constrained by the confines of religious perimeters; this is the answer of the resilient majority of Pakistanis. We are united to overcome the extremists, and this is final.