Maulana was the most prominent Muslim leader to oppose the creation of Pakistan.
BALLIA, UTTAR PRADESH — Uttar Pradesh Minister Anand Swarup Shukla has kicked up a controversy by claiming that the country’s first Education Minister, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, did not believed in ‘Bharat and Bhartiyata’.
“I have no hesitation in saying that in the heart of Abul Kalam Azad, there was no ‘Bharat aur Bhartiyata” (India and Indianness),” the minister said while addressing a function in Ballia.
“When Kashmiri Pandits requested Guru Tegh Bahadur to help them from the hands of Aurangzeb, who was pressurising them to embrace Islam, the Guru went there and he was beheaded by Aurangzeb.
“These facts were removed from history, apparently at the behest of the first education minister. The only thing which is there is that Akbar was great despite the fact that Ain-i-Akbari and historians of that time never considered him great,” Shukla said to prove his point.
Maulana Azad’s real name was Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin. He became the youngest person to serve as the President of the Congress party at the age of 35 in 1923. He was the most prominent Muslim leader to oppose the creation of Pakistan.
— IANS
Shukla who????? Bharat Jalao aur becho Party…..BJPeee……
Maulana Azad was an Indian Muslim legendary highly educated God-fearing INDIAN MUSLIM STALWART who put idiot alcoholic, womaniser, hypocrite, Ummah-divider Jinnah and the Sanghis in their lowly place, by opposing them tooth and nail for preserving a unified India!
But the British and Sanghis won with Kurdoglu Jinnah’s sloganeering like Owaisi for the buffoon masses (for becoming head of small state), with tacit support of gold-digger Nehru.
According to the journalist Khaled Ahmed, Jinnah publicly had a non-sectarian stance and “was at pains to gather the Muslims of India under the banner of a general Muslim faith and not under a divisive sectarian identity.”
Liaquat H. Merchant, Jinnah’s grandnephew, writes that “the Quaid was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni, he was simply a Muslim”.
Some historians such as Jalal and H. M. Seervai assert that Jinnah never wanted the partition of India—it was the outcome of the Congress leaders being unwilling to share power with the Muslim League.
They contend that Jinnah only used the Pakistan demand in an attempt to mobilise support to obtain significant political rights for Muslims.
Francis Mudie, the last British Governor of Sindh, in Jinnah’s honour once said:
In judging Jinnah, we must remember what he was up against.
He had against him not only the wealth and brains of the Hindus, but also nearly the whole of British officialdom, and most of the Home politicians, who made the great mistake of refusing to take Pakistan seriously. Never was his position really examined.
Judging Jinnah fairly in history……he was brave, extremely intelligent, chose his responses and words like a wise expert advocate, and learnt very quickly with experience with the Sanghis in the Congress.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak of Congress, despite being staunch adversary, still trusted his case of sedition to intelligent Jinnah in Bombay Court to plead against the British govt, which he won for Tilak.
I took Anand Shukla’s words as correct. At present, if there were a few disenfranchised leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam in the BJP, the country would not be in this situation. None of the BJP leaders have Indianness, which is what caste is all about. Their thoughts, ideas and actions are never in harmony with the feeling of Indianness. They were never in favor of a united India, so the RSS leaders supported the British plan to divide India. But Maulana Azad was strongly opposed to this plan. Indianness and Hinduism are not one. Indianness is far above these, where Maulana Azad lived.
Born in Mecca to an Afghan Father and Medina mother, Moulana Azad was hardly a Hindustani… not as much as Aurangzeb … he was Nehru’s Fabian Indian, yes.
The hatred filled creatures have nothing but hatred oozing out of them. They will ultimately be turned into ashes by their own hatred.