Asia Online Journal (iaoj)

Bombay Presidency, Sindh & Sindhis – political implications

14 03 2008
Speech by: Aziz Narejo, Mumbai, India
The president, distinguished guests, scholars and
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Peace be unto you:
It is good to be here in the great city of Mumbai , which is very familiar to the
people in South Asia and is a major world metropolis.

Let me start with a poem that is actually a prayer by the Poet Laureate of
Sindh, Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai:
“saaneen-m sadaaeen kareen mathey Sindh sukar
Dost mitha dildar aalam sabh aabad kareen”
‘Oh my Lord, shower thy blessings over Sindh
Oh my Friend, bestow abundance all over the world’.
I bring greetings to you from the North American Sindhi community,
especially the members of our organization, Sindhi Association of North
America (SANA). I wish the organizers of this seminar a great success in their
endeavor. I would like to see many more avenues like this to open in future
for the betterment of our people and the preservation and promotion of our
language and culture.
I am personally grateful to Dr Baldev Matlani, head of the Department of
Sindhi, University of Mumbai to have invited me to be here and speak to you
on this very important subject: “Bombay Presidency, Sindh & Sindhis –
political implications” . Sindh’s merger with Bombay Presidency and an epic
struggle by Sindhis to gain eventual separation or “freedom”, “aazaadi”, as it
was called at that time, were truly the most significant chapters in the
history of the Indian sub-continent. They had very important and momentous
impact on the future of British India .
Before I say anything on the subject, I would like to make a few submissions:
First I would request you not to consider this as a research paper. As I live in
USA , far away from my land, and didn’t have the research material available
to me, I couldn’t possibly write a fully researched paper. Hence, this should
be treated as my observations on the subject:
We have to ask one question here: Why do we go back to history? It could
sometimes be a very difficult task that might re-open the wounds that need
to be healed. At other times it could create dangerous situations that may
destabilize societies.
Also as most of us believe, history happens to be very subjective. Many
people write it with biased minds and many more see it through tainted
lenses. It is very rare to find objective accounts of history. Even those could
be questionable for some.
There are also two views of history: one is by and for the scholars and the
historians. That is mostly technical and too academic. The other view is that
of the common folks. That view may not be authentic and could have more
propaganda in it than carrying hard and verifiable facts. It could be used to
devastating effect – to fabricate myths, cloud some realities and create new
ones.
So why do we go back to history? Do we do it to study it as a science and
ascertain facts or do we go to it to learn from it with a clear purpose to avoid
any past mistakes to help build a better and more peaceful future?
Again the scholars, academia and historians would be best suited to go for
the first choice.
Common folks could go for the second choice. That’s how I would like to deal
with this subject.
I would also like to mention here two major forces, religion and economics,
which have drawn lines on many controversial subjects as the present one
under discussion.
I am of the view that the religion is one of the most powerful elements in
people’s lives. It has great influence and plays very important role. It has the
potential to cause devastating wars and shaping the destinies of the people
and the countries. It is capable of inciting great commotion, crises and
upheaval but at the same time it also helps people attain inner peace and a
purpose in life.
No one should underestimate the power of religion. It becomes lethal
weapon especially in the hands of the politicians. They could use it for their
purpose to the detriment of the peace and progress.
That’s one reason, it is advocated that religion should not be mixed with
politics and statecraft. It should not have any role in public affairs,
governance and civic matters. That is how secularism has grown to be an
accepted norm in many societies.
The economics is the other important factor that affects the lives of the
people and helps them make far-reaching decisions. The economic interests
of a group, a people or a nation either bind them together or separate them
from others.
That is not to diminish the role of the social, cultural, linguistic, ethnic and
other factors in a society.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Sindh has had its identity from the time immemorial
– since the pre-historic age. It gets the name from Indus River , which is one
of the world’s largest rivers providing sustenance to the people in the towns
and villages on its banks and in its valleys. The inhabitants of Sindh made up
one of the world’s oldest civilizations. It was on the banks of Indus River that
great Vedas were written.
The people in Sindh had been considered well-to-do and self-sufficient. They
had been engaged in agriculture, trade and entrepreneurship. They didn’t
need much outside help to survive. Hence they were one of the only few
nations around the world that didn’t invade other countries to bring riches to
their land.
In the known history, Sindh has been a peaceful land believing in the pacifist
philosophy that didn’t need or practice any violence. They have had respect
for all the religions and faiths of the world. In Sindh, followers of different
religions had co-existed peacefully without feeling any insecurities or threats.
One can safely say that the most peaceful period in Sindh’s history has been
the time when it had been ruled by its indigenous rulers. In recent history, it
had been the period under Soomra and Samma rule. Soomra rule began in
the eleventh century and the Samma rule in the fourteenth century A.D. That
period is called ‘the golden period’ for Sindh, which saw peace and progress
and an unmatched religious tolerance with no room for discrimination on the
basis of faith or belief.
At the end of Samma period in the sixteenth century, Arghus established
their rule in Sindh and since then Sindh, although maintaining its identity,
has virtually been ruled by non-indigenous groups with only brief intervals.
During that period rulers created divisions on the basis of religion and
discriminated against the minorities giving birth to ill-feelings among
citizens.
British were no different an occupying force when they invaded and
conquered Sindh in 1843. They followed the age-old policy of divide and rule
and favored one over the other and provided more opportunities of
development and progress to one than the other.
They committed another sin when they revoked the identity of Sindh and
made it a part of the Bombay Presidency in 1847. That was something
unnatural and unfair. Sindhis suddenly ceased to be Sindhis. They became
subjects of an alien entity. They did never have any such relationship with
Bombay in the history. Nor did the two have much in common.
Hamida Khuhro in her article ‘British administrative policy in Sind and the
role of Sir Bartle Frere’ says that the two certainly had markedly different
physical features, a totally dissimilar population make up and entirely
different historical background. Sindh was also difficult of access from
Bombay . She adds that it could be said with confidence that little benefit
came to Sindh from the connection.
Other points of major difference were that Sindh had its own language and
culture and economy. It had always been either an independent country or a
semi-independent, autonomous state or entity paying some revenues to
either Indian Kings or rulers in the North West . But Sindh had always
maintained its identity and lived according to its own traditions, customs and
culture.
Occupation of Sindh by Sir Charles Napier was already an ignoble act.
Making it a part of a large and developed area instead of retaining it as an
autonomous province was an invitation to disaster.
We have seen it in Pakistan when One-Unit was imposed on Sindh in 1955
making it a part of the West Pakistan province with hegemony of the Punjab .
Hordes of immigrants from other areas of West Pakistan entered Sindh and
virtually occupied all avenues of economy threatening Sindhi life and culture
and subjugating Sindhi masses.
One-unit experience was disastrous for Sindh. Although the system lasted
only 15 years, the province is still suffering its consequences. Compared to
it, Sindh remained part of Bombay Presidency for about 90 years. One can
imagine the negative impact it might have caused to the life and the
economy in Sindh.
As Sindh was made a part of the Bombay Presidency, the merchants and
various other groups started immigrating to Sindh from Bombay and other
parts of India . The ultimate decision makers in Bombay who were not
familiar with the conditions of Sindh could not pay any attention to the needs
of the people and the development of the area. There were long delays in
decisions on important matters due to poor communication links between
Karachi and Bombay .
Mr. Malkani commenting on the situation says: “ Bombay officialdom treated
Sindh as the Shikargah (hunting ground) during their winter visits”. The irony
is that even though they either did not visit Sindh or came to Sindh for a
week or 10 days in a year, 1/4th of their salaries were paid by Sindh.
Lack of development work in Sindh can be judged from the fact that for
many years, Sindh did not have any center for holding matriculation
examination. Students had to travel to Bombay to appear in the
examination. There was no rail or road link between Sindh and Bombay .
There was a boat service between Karachi and Bombay for postal
communication. It carried a few people as passengers and took several days
from Karachi to Bombay and back. Land travel was even more cumbersome.
People had to take long, difficult and circuitous route. It took longer period. It
was next to impossible for poor students to take the journey closing the
doors of higher education to them and hence any share in the government
employment and any better opportunities.
Bombay Presidency didn’t help or support establishment of a University in
Sindh nor did it open any colleges in arts, engineering or any other science
and humanities subjects.
Bombay ’s lack of interest in Sindh’s development was also evident from the
roads and communications sector. As Rasool Bux Palijo writes in his article
on “Simon Commission and denial of provincial autonomy to Sindhi” that
during 70 years’ rule, Bombay government constructed only 5 miles of road
in Sindh. He says that in 1915-16 a sum of 803 rupees was spent on roads in
Sindh while during the same period 2.1 million rupees were spent in other
parts of Bombay Presidency, which had 5,118 miles of roads.
Swarna Rajagopalan writes in the “State and Nation in South Asia” that
people of Sindh complained of neglect of their province by Bombay
authorities. He said that the annexation of Sindh to Bombay Presidency
caused important demographic, commercial and political consequences.
Outside mercantile class grew in wealth and influence while the majority in
Sindh remained poor and uneducated. He also says that migration to Sindh
from other parts of Bombay presidency of various trading communities took
place during that period.
These and many other injustices and abnormalities forced Sindhis to ask for
provincial status for Sindh. A movement for separation of Sindh was
launched with wide support from the masses. Initially it had support from all
the people irrespective of their faith. Muslim League and National Congress
both supported the movement.
It was very unfortunate that in the later stages there was a dissent on the
basis of religion and Sindhi society was bitterly divided. It was ironic that the
first prominent leader to ask for Sindh’s separation from Bombay was Seth
Harchand Rai Vishandas while Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto was against it. After the
change in the situation, the two were seen reversing their roles with Seth
Harchand Rai opposing the separation while Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto fighting
the case of Sindh’s provincial status.
As the movement grew in influence, British government sent a statutory
commission also called Simon Commission to ascertain the facts and submit
a report.
The leaders that represented the demand for the separation of Sindh from
Bombay included Mohammad Ayub Khuhro, Barrister Mir Ayub Khan,
Barrister Abdul Rahman, Wahid Bux Bhutto, Jan Mohammad Khan,
Mohammad Kamil Shah, Wali Mohammad Hassanali and Ali Bux.
The leaders that represented the opposition to Sindh’s separation from
Bombay included Professor Chhablani, Khemsingh, Diyalmal Daulatram, M.L.
Chhablani, Seth Shaukat Rai Veerumal, Harchandrai Tahalramani, Moolchand
Kauromal, Seth Chelaram, Bhagwandas Ahuja, P.T. Advani and Dr D.G
Advani.
The commission didn’t clearly support the separation case. The Bristish
government discussed the issue during round table conferences in London
and finally agreed to give Sindh a long over due provincial status but that
unfortunately happened at the cost of a grave damage to once peaceful
land. The people were divided on the basis of their faith – something that
was alien to Sindhi culture where people had lived like a big family sharing
the joys and sorrows together.
Ladies and Gentlemen: the movement for Sindh’s separation from Bombay
had serious political implications. It is said that the movement for Sindh’s
separation from Bombay actually paved the way for the future partition of
the Indian sub-continent and the establishment of Pakistan . It was the Sindhi
leadership that was first to demand the right of the self-determination of
Muslims in October 1938. Sindh Assembly was the first provincial assembly
that passed a resolution to demand the establishment of Pakistan in 1943.
Sindh’s support for the demand for Pakistan was crucial as Sindh was the
only province in whole India with a large Muslim majority. Bengal and Punjab
did not have that large Muslim majority. There the Muslims were barely over
50%. The Frontier province did not have clear stand on the issue at that time
and Balochistan didn’t have the autonomous provincial status.
Another impact was the polarization and radicalization of people on the basis
of religion. Before the movement grew in influence, majority of Sindhi Muslim
leaders were members of the Indian National Congress. Muslim League had
no significant following in Sindh up to that point. Leaders such as Ayub
Khuhro, Shaikh Abdul Majid Sindhi, Abdullah Haroon and Hatim Alvi joined
Muslim League in 1938.
It was two years after Sindh attained provincial status that a branch of
Muslim League was formally opened in Sindh in 1938 and G. M. Syed who
was a prominent leader of Congress at that time joined Muslim League.
The later events in Sindh and other parts of the Indian sub-continent led to
the partition that caused one of the greatest tragedies that have ever hit the
humankind.
It also caused huge loss to “Sindhi Samaj”, Sindhi society, language, culture
and the people’s political and economic rights.
Where do we go from here?
For one, I would caution the people to handle with care the controversial
subjects such as the one under discussion here today. They have already
caused too much anguish and injury to many societies around the world. We
should not let them divide the people any more. Time comes in the history of
the people when they should look forward and move on. Yes, we should
study such subjects and see them in their true perspective but should not let
them reopen the wounds and cause more harm.
I also think that it is incumbent on all the Sindhis living in as well as outside
Sindh to play an effective role in the preservation of Sindhi language and
culture.
I would like to make a proposal on this forum that Sindhis should celebrate
all over the world “Sindh National Heritage Month” – “Sindh jey qaumi virsey
jo mahinoo”. All media, related departments of academia, social and cultural
organizations, scholars, historians and writers should write and produce
programs on various aspects of Sindhi heritage. It could be held during the
first Sindhi month “Chet” or any other month agreed upon by various Sindhi
scholars and organizations.
We should do it to preserve and promote Sindhi language, literature, music,
art and culture and let our younger generations and the world know what
Sindh and Sindhi heritage represent.
I request all of you and the distinguished guests to support the idea. We can
try to reach various organizations in Sindh and abroad in this regards. It may
go a long way in preserving and promoting our heritage