Those who read my previous blog on the late Miss Fatima Jinnah’s censored speech in 1951 on Radio Pakistan and her burial, came forth with countless interesting comments. Some of them even claimed that I had misinterpreted history.
I would like to take this opportunity to state, quite candidly, that the facts I brought to light were facts indeed.
To prove the point that Miss Jinnah’s speech was indeed censored, I had referenced Qudratullah Shahab’s book. Some friends were still dissatisfied, claiming it was impossible, though they did not say the book was full of lies. In fact, most of them they had not read the books. I had to repeat the entire presentation of evidence to satisfy those in a state of denial.
I would like to put forth the evidence for the readers as well.
After Miss Jinnah’s censored radio broadcast, the correspondence between Mr Z.A. Bukhari and her is a vital historical record of the time. One of the most interesting facts is that Ms Jinnah had actually welcomed Ayub Khan’s coup and the dismissal of Iskandar Mirza’s government. She had expressed ‘contentment’ over the matter.
Also read: The deleted bits from Fatima Jinnah's 'My Brother'
In Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah: Speeches, Messages and Statements (1947-67), compiled by Jamil Ahmed, readers will find the content of the letters exchanged between Z.A. Bukhari and Ms Jinnah on pages 59 and 60:
Letter of apology to Miss Jinnah by the controller of broadcasting, Mr Z.A. Bukhari
"I once again heartily apologise over the technical problem during your speech broadcast last night. We had encountered a technical fault in our generators the previous Saturday. We had tried our best to provide full power to our transmitters yesterday during the national broadcast. Sadly, we could not do so, resulting in some faults during the transmission, which were noticed by our listeners and our transmitter monitors. However, I ensure you that even after the technical problem, the flow of your speech was not disturbed. This can be verified in the reports by our regional stations."
Ms Jinnah’s reply
“This is in response to your letter on behalf of the PUJ (Reference No. 51/1(61)), received on 12 September, 1951. On the 11th of September, you had requested the copy of the broadcast which was duly sent to you at 7:00pm. At 8:00pm you had called on me at my residence in a stressful condition. With sad expressions, you had requested that I omit certain parts of my speech. To which I had replied, sans any emotional aspiration, that if one does not enjoy the freedom of expression in a democratic country, I would like to withdraw my speech instead of changing it, as it was on your request that I had agreed for the speech in the first place.
“As usual, you asked me to listen to the recorded speech after the broadcast, which sounded perfect. It is astonishing that neither you, nor anyone from your staff even mentioned the technical problem in the transmitters at that time. I came to know about the technical problems while I was on my way to my residence. It is also a matter of wonderment for me that the very sentences that you requested to omit from the speech were the ones which could not be broadcast due to the technical problem.
“It seems your transmitters are very obedient and submissive as they are always ready to create technical problems in order to facilitate you.
“The people who tried to create problems in my original speech, and stopped my voice from reaching the people, and tried to omit certain sentences of my speech, have in fact highlighted the importance (of these sentences) to the people. You mentioned in your letter that your regional stations reported about the flow of my speech. Had it been so, you would not have taken the trouble to apologise.
“As far as complaints by the people are concerned, it is your duty to satisfy them. Your explanation is neither satisfying, nor assuring. In such a case, an apology is merely a soft version of pleading guilty and admitting to one’s crime.”
Also read: Fatima Jinnah: A sister’s sorrow
Z.A. Bukhari was not only a praiseworthy broadcaster, but a disciplined administrator, too. One can only wonder if it was a personal dislike he had satisfied, or the pressure of the government that he bent his rules for, but he was responsible for censoring Miss Jinnah’s speech.
Burhanuddin Hassan writes about Bukhari in his book Pus-e-Purdah, pages 35-36:
“During the first decade of Pakistan’s independence, the political leaders and the respective parties were so occupied in the political conspiracies that they seldom used the radio as a means for publicity of the personalities or the policies of the government. The Information Minister was a junior bureaucrat who neither had the influence nor the professional ability to control senior personnel like Z.A. Bukhari or Ghani Arabi.
“One particular incident had turned into a famous joke with almost all the intellectual and journalist circles in those times:
"Once, the journalist who had been chosen by the government to be the Information Minister had come to visit Radio Pakistan’s broadcasting house. During the minister’s meeting with Z.A. Bukhari, the office peon brought in tea. Bukhari sahib stood up, took the tray from the peon and respectfully placed it in front of the minister, to which the minister said, 'We are old friends. You do not have to flatter me only because I’ve become a government minister.'
"Bukhari sahib replied, 'I’m not trying to flatter you. Instead, I’m making sure my peon does not hold any grudge against me. You see, I’m afraid one day even he might become a minister.'"
In 1958, Ms Fatima Jinnah had expressed satisfaction over the dismissal of the Iskandar Mirza government by the military dictator Ayub Khan. A few major reasons were political instability, authoritarianism and corruption. Those were times of social and economic troubles.
Jamil Ahmed, in his book mentioned earlier, writes on pages 280-81 that in 1958, when the Iskandar Mirza government was dismissed by Ayub Khan, Ms Fatima Jinnah issued this statement:
“In the political context, as Major General Iskandar Mirza’s government is dismissed, the people breathe a sigh of relief. In the past three years, during which he was the premier of the country, he [Mirza] had solved not a single problem. Instead, discrimination and differences were catalysed, bringing Pakistan to the verge of political and economic destruction. The people had been cornered as mere spectators, while they faced all sorts of problems and social ills.
“General Ayub Khan’s government is the beginning of a new era. The armed forces have taken up the responsibility of eradicating social ills and electoral rigging and other misdemeanours, so that the situation in the country can be normalised and the people can have trust, security and stability.
“I hope and pray that God will bestow upon them the power and the wisdom to help them succeed in their mission. For the past three weeks, the people have been spending their days in comfort and contentment, which is proof enough that they are satisfied and that they understand the situation. We have a mission in front of us that we eliminate all those powers that have imposed themselves upon us, and that we bring the country back to stabilisation so that we can carry on treading the path of true democracy. We should make it our motto to rise from personal gains and self-centredness in order to serve the country. It all depends on you and your patriotism.
God willing, these dark days will soon end, and Pakistan shall soon acquire that status among the nations of the world which the Quaid-i-Azam had dreamed of. Move forward in the status of a nation with your faith, unity and discipline.
Surely, Fatima Jinnah had no idea at the time that she would have to lead the movement to rid Pakistan of Ayub Khan’s dictatorship.
Ayub Khan, too, did not have the idea that Fatima Jinnah would create problems for him. He was sure of his success. And so it happened. He had won the presidential elections, but the results had given him a shock.
Burhanuddin Hassan writes in his book (mentioned earlier) on pages 55-56:
Presidential Elections of 1965
“Ayub Khan’s information secretary and his biographer Altaf Gohar have painted a good sketch of the time when, after winning the presidential election, President-elect Ayub Khan was preparing for his speech broadcast:
“'Ayub Khan’s speech was to be broadcast at 10:00pm that night, but after 7:00pm, flatterers had gathered around Ayub Khan in order to present to him with recommendations as to what should he be speaking of in his ‘victory’ speech. The Information Secretary had already prepared his speech. Ayub Khan read that very speech without any touch of emotion in his tone of voice. For hours, he carried an expression of stress on his face. It was because of the realisation that he had almost lost the election and that a large number of people had rejected the constitutional reforms that he had implemented. Out of the 80,000 basic democracy members, 49,951 had voted in his favour, while a substantially large number of 38,691 members had voted against him. It was West Pakistan that had actually won him the election with 21,012 votes in his favour, and 18,434 votes against him. Except Karachi, all the divisions and districts were Ayub’s strongholds.'"
All the above information is based on facts. It is a merciless endeavor to be a historian.
The information staring you in the face can be shocking, sometimes. It can force you to rethink long-held truths that you always took for granted. History writers, prone to be biased against their times, rulers or certain people, always restrict the readers' perspectives.
Such historians may succeed, but only for a little while.
After the lies have lived their short lives out, people start asking the inevitable questions. And, when do not get the answers to their questions from others, they start the search themselves.
And that is the right thing to do.
