Thank you Zaki Sabih Sahib, for sharing your life journey in “My life, Pakistan and Great Balidan.” It gives fascinating accounts of personal and family life, the places they were raised as children, the religious and political environment they were exposed to from early age, and life before and after the partition. But it is the critical analysis of tragic consequences of partition which captures our attention.  

The book gives firsthand account of heart wrenching hardships and agonies suffered by author’s own family, and many other such families, who migrated to Pakistan after leaving everything behind and starting from scratch in Pakistan. Many of these families made sacrifices both in blood and lifetime possessions. These immigrant families were glad to sacrifice it all, the author calls it “Great Balidan”, for the sake of new beloved country “Pakistan”.  They had big hopes and dreams of new life in Pakistan.

As Pakistan’s envisioned dream started to slip away due to corrupt and inept leaders, some are questioning its foundational undertaking. The author is fiercely passionate and unsparing on this topic and puts the blame of partition and human tragedy at the feet of Muhammad Ali Jinnah- in a strong un-forgiving language. Author’s exasperation, disappointment, and anger seeps through the lines when writing about Jinnah and partition.

Even though book is the author’s account seen through the lenses of personal experiences and perceptions, I think role of Jinnah and Abdul Kalam Azad deserves some expanded perspective. Following is my expanded perspective based upon my reading over the years.

 All the main political characters on both sides showed stubbornness and they miscalculated, misjudged, undercut, and underestimated each other and they all share equal blame for the partition. Iqbal and Jinnah’s first choice was Confederation of India and not partition. In 1929 Jinnah presented 11 points on Confederation which were rejected outright by Congress with the tacit blessings of Abdul Kalam Azad and demanded to dissolve the Muslim League before any such dialogue. This outright rejection was grave mistake as this rejection gave fuel to separate homeland movement which spread like fire among Muslims. This was the time to engage each other and reach some compromise and not years later in 1946, with Cabinet Mission Plan, when partition was inevitable and everyone knew that at this late juncture it was nothing more than a hail Mary pass and Congress gave a yes nod to Azad just to check the box. Muslim League leaders considered it just a whitewash. Muslim public at large was way ahead of the negotiators and had already made up their mind on separate homeland. Any reversal at this late stage may not have been accepted by them and Muslim League leaders were acutely aware of it.

For all the practical purposes, and in the eyes of Muslim public at large, Muslim League was representing them, and not marginal parties like Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind whose members Azad coerced into Congress in the name of Pan-Islamism and Khilafat Movement. Many such comrades of Azad moved to Pakistan after partition and nourished Jihadists for Kashmir, with the help of Army, which later morphed into terrorist organizations with dire consequences for Pakistan.

Congress and Azad refused to accept Jinnah and Muslim League as the major consequential agency representing Muslims and seriously engage them as such from the beginning and that had serious consequences. Similarly, Muslim League and Jinnah’s grave mistake was to not take Azad seriously as president of Congress and give him due respect. This created personal animosities. These misguided and unwise steps from both sides seriously damaged any goodwill and trust which are essential currency for any good outcome.

How would the undivided India look like today and how Modi’s India fits in this narrative? After all, minority Muslims ruled India for almost three centuries and there were pent up anger and resentment among majority Hindus, and rightfully so.  It is wishful thinking that Hindu majority, which has their own share of extremist Hindu nationalists, would forget and forgive these injustices because Muslims have relatively better clout at ballot box in un-divided India. Emergence of someone like Modi was inevitable in divided or undivided India. Enshrined human and minority rights in constitution are as good as the wishes and whims of majority party as Modi and Trump proves it.

Abdul Kalam Azad was a devout Pan-Islamist and his slogan of why settle for part of the country if you can have all was grounded in Pan-Islamism and pre 1947 India, era of Muslim and British rule. But it has no relation to reality in post 1947 India where Hindu majority is going to usher in their own vision of India, divided or undivided, to erase injustices of prior centuries.

Humans have tribal mentality and unfortunately, partition of India was inevitable, with or without Jinah, in 1947 or decades later, in current form or some other form.

Abdul Kalam Azad was not immune from this tribal mentality either-only he has a bigger tent for Muslims only, “Pan-Islamic Tent”.

The book challenges your existing perceptions and beliefs and is not for the weak heart. Its reading requires open mind, which for some is a lot to ask for on this emotional topic. It is a must read for any serious student of Indian sub-continent history.

The author gives exceptional uplifting message in the final words expressing hope and desire for us all to move forward and not get stuck in the past. Getting stuck in the past is the major obstacle in any progress and finding sound footing in the new unfolding world.

Fayyaz Sheikh

“Mamdani’s Victory” By Nate Cohn

(Nate Cohn of NYT is considered guru of poll analysis). Some excerpts of article.

“Usually, there isn’t much to learn from a single idiosyncratic primary election. But not this one. The New York Democratic mayoral primary was about much more than the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, and as a consequence there’s a lot more to learn.”

“Today, liberal Democrats outnumber moderate and conservative ones by 12 percentage points, according to Gallup, 55 percent to 43 percent. In 2016 and 2020, liberals were essentially even with moderate and conservative Democrats.

Similarly, Democrats have moved to the left on Israel. Gallup found that 59 percent of Democrats now sympathize more with Palestinians than with Israelis (21 percent). This is a huge reversal from 2013, when Democrats sympathized with Israelis over Palestinians, 55-19.”

“And while Mr. Mamdani’s campaign will be hard to replicate, progressives can attempt to copy much of the way he campaigned. They can try to catch fire with viral videos on social media. They can criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank with confidence that Democratic primary voters are sympathetic to their views. In doing so, they would put many mainstream Democratic politicians in a difficult spot, as the general electorate still sympathizes more with Israel.”

“Most of all, they can focus on affordability. This might seem obvious. Mr. Mamdani’s campaign was different. He focused on the cost of living. By talking about the prices of chicken and rice, groceries, rent and buses, he spoke much more directly to the concerns of ordinary people than he would have if he had campaigned on a Green New York Deal or Medicare for all of N.Y.C,”

“Affordability and Israel give them new opportunities and put mainstream Democrats in a challenging spot.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/upshot/zohran-mamdani-democrats-progressives.html

posted by f.sheikh

“What is never mentioned about the grand inventors, artists, scientists and doctors of our world who have done amazing deeds for humanity with their minds and hands is that they all failed in their attempts before they made it.”

“What we creatives are often unaware of is that talent isn’t everything. Sure, talent helps – but just as important is something else we rarely think about: repetition. The repeated movements of our craft – the physical routines we practise over and over – follow us everywhere. Whether we call it practice or technique, these repeated actions shape our brains in powerful ways, often without us even realizing it.”

“They form unique connections in the brain – linking movement, memory and emotion. These connections stretch across the parts of the brain that control movement, wrap around the areas responsible for memory, and reach deep into the emotional core of the brain – the limbic system. That includes the insula, a region that helps manage both our physical health and our inner sense of self.

‘Muscle memory’ doesn’t live in our hands or legs. The real control centre is in the brain. This is where movement begins, guided by systems that plan and initiate what we do. From there, messages travel through long chains of nerve cells – from the brain down the spine and out to the rest of the body. Millions of tiny electrical signals, known as action potentials, move back and forth, telling our muscles, organs and even the tips of our fingers what to do next.

The idea is to ‘program’ the right moves in our brain so they become so automatic we can use them to, yes, feel, and to find flow.

One thing is for sure, if you keep chasing flow by some sort of celestial action, waiting for your inner genius to strike from nowhere, you’ll keep failing. Because that genius, apologies for being blunt, is, in fact, nowhere to be found. Genius is work.”

You need to build mastery in order to find your flow | Aeon Essays

posted by f.sheikh

In December 2013, not long after the publication of Mike Tyson’s autobiography, The Wall Street Journal asked him—along with forty‑nine other distinguished writers, academics, artists, politicians, and CEOs—to name their favorite books of the year. Among Tyson’s selections was a Kindle book, Alexander the Great: The Macedonian Who Conquered the World.

“Everyone thinks Alexander was this giant, but he was really a runt,” wrote Tyson, who nevertheless, at the height of his own megalomania, commissioned a seven‑foot likeness of Alexander (along with congruently sized statues of Genghis Khan and the Haitian revolutionary Jean‑Jacques Dessalines) by the pool of his Las Vegas home.

“Alexander, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, even a cold pimp like Iceberg Slim—they were all mama’s boys,” wrote Tyson. “That’s why Alexander kept pushing forward. He didn’t want to have to go home and be dominated by his mother.”

Boxing is permeated with every variety of Oedipal construct. In the last decade or so, the prevalent strain is fighters not merely driven by their fathers but actually trained by them. These dads tend to be street guys who may or may not have boxed themselves. And while the fighter inevitably wants to surpass all paternal expectation, he (or, yes, she) also wants to make Daddy proud. And rich.

Then again, I still see plenty of fighters who just want to kill their fathers, typically for abandonment. Mike might’ve fallen into this category, at least judging from his recollection of Curlee: He and my mother never spoke to each other, he’d just beep the horn and we’d just go down and meet him. The kids would pile into his Cadillac and we thought we were going on an excursion to Coney Island or Brighton Beach, but he’d just drive around for a few minutes, pull back up to our apartment building, give us some money, give my sister a kiss, and shake me and my brother’s hands and that was it. Maybe I’d see him in another year.

So much for the paternal side of the equation. But it’s the true mama’s boy who seems to me the most dangerous kind of fighter.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh