Pakistan - Abdul Kalam Azad's thoughts

7/30/2019 Pakistan - Abdul Kalam Azad's thoughts

1/14

Books and Documents

25 Nov 2009, NewAgeIslam. Com

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its

Creation

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or

regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in

India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can

unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name

of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahhabi,

Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and

divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have

created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas

declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers;

now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how

good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope

with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and

trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become

fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult..

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their

communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as

commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed

those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples o

sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high

ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs. --

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in an interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based

Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946.

This invaluable document has been resurrected and translated by former union minister

Arif Mohammad Khan for CovertMagazine. The redoubtable Maulanas predictions about

what will happen to Pakistan, if it got created, have come so uncannily true that they almost

read like newspaper headlines.


2/14

URL of this Page: http://newageislam. org/NewAgeIslamW arOnTerror_ 1.aspx?ArticleID

=2139

------

THE MAN WHO KNEW THE FUTURE

by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore

Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalistShorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time

when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some

startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying thatreligious conflict would

tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that

Pakistans incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule . According to Shorish

Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview

was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any

book so far neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his

writing or speeches except for Kashmiris own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was

printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former

Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for

many years and translated the interview for COVERT

Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any

possibility of reconciliation. Dont you think that in this situation the birth of

Pakistan has become inevitable?

A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my

support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP,

Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think
http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139


3/14

they will get the rest of India a huge country that would be free from any claims o

communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu

state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any

conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you

expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values

since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in

Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics o

partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all

possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion

beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons

from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in

the name of religion then Islams growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline

of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% o

the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had

not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section

acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the

number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in

the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what

it is a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence,

we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other

communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary

community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves

into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power.

Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in

Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is

strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. Infact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the

religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint.

Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it

is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided


4/14

for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this

find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the

scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in

principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain

the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise

that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to

go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not

have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a

contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it

finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim?

Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political

ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How

Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind o

leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more

serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam

will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God

alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face

conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power

will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the

Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim

minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority

states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen

in Pakistan.

Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].

A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do notdiscuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought

humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are

exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history o

the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember


5/14

no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt,

but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned

were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, Islam is being

used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.

A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim

history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between

Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances.

Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those

Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim

general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No

sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.

If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the

dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible

for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or

to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless

they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The

only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr

Jinnah himself if he agrees to some new proposal.

Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the

division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences o

partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition

will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like

mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.

We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatredlasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation

it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless

some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier

between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the


6/14

Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be

possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or

leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will

have three options before them:

1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many

Muslims can find shelter there?

2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims

will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the

generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.

3.. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional

depredation decide to renounce Islam.

The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The

wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy o

Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise

Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and

Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by

many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will

seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become

tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and

hostility from Pakistan.

The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnahs attention is Bengal. He does not

know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World

War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr

H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the

history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not

happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fastunto death at Rajkot.. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the

Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and

rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive.


7/14

But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will

not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period o

time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves

Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in

the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common

civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even

territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government

are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other

hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West

Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will

emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests

of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation o

East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground o

regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab,

Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be

long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political

leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage

we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.

The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim

business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so

used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They

advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state

where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from

competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception

alive.

I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has

happened in many Muslim countries.

2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.

3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.


8/14

4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.

6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.

7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the

theory of Pakistan.

8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.

In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will

be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will

not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and

how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.

A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the

answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community

identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will

it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants?

What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom o

faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90

million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their

religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what

magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have

been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their

own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.

Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were

serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not

Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divineswere treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who

were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its

pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds

of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India


9/14

was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint

of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages o

India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The

underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.

If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free

India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with

life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not

possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become

cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so

obsessed with threats to their existence a figment of their imagination.

After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the

Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that

was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then

India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this

country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their sel

interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such

attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.

The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after

Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do

not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more

familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary

community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace

on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger

who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all

social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles

of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and ourextremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had

not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth

would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it

is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian


10/14

Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to

create more problems.

The Holy Prophet has said, God has made the whole earth a mosque for me. Now do not

ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were

thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner

to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a

demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on

administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border

states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who

can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away

from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing

more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of Hindu Raj. The Hindu Muslim problem that

has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute

between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full

scale war anytime in future.

The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the

Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is

coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned

about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better

position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with

the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get

rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition o

India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a

communal problem.

In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will

be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and itis not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection

of the interest of the underclass.. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are

apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal

colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are


11/14

not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then

endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters

worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.

Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini

Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had

refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In

1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select

Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion

that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly

favoured a jointelectorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, I am

a nationalist first and a nationalist last and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or

Muslims, not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a

national institution in the truest sense of the term.

In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did

not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he

stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress

formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to

pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for

Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his

opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked

overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become

a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.

Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan.

Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?

A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, butto suppress ones conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they

are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or

flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are

surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the


12/14

right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but

through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and

distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the

departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they

believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers

are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much

greater loss of lives and possessions.

Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate

inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?

A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used

not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human

groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the

etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In

religious terms India is home to many people the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis,

Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these

differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her

freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity o

India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a

blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or

regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in

India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can

unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name

of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi,Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and

divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have

created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas

declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers;


13/14

now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how

good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope

with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and

trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become

fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their

communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as

commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed

those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples o

sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high

ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.

Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your

disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or

did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?

A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great

awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human

freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly

enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the

companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I

burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based

on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time

and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom

of Asia and Africa largely depends on Indias freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to

Indias freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to

attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mindabout the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together

with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians

were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody

say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth


14/14

on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters [].

Pakistan - Abdul Kalam Azad's thoughts

Documents

Transcript of Pakistan - Abdul Kalam Azad's thoughts