Recalling a Great Man: Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy

By Hafizur Rahman

Some time ago there was something of a controversy in the newspapers on the post-partition politics of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, prime minister from September 1956 to October 1957, in the context of unity between east and west Pakistan.

The discussion had also prompted a letter from his grand-daughter, Barrister Shahida Jamil. This made me look at the chapter on Mr Suhrawardy in Abdul Qayyum’s book “Three Presidents, Three Prime Ministers” published in 1996.

Once my boss in provincial information department, the late Mr Qayyum had served six rulers of Pakistan as PRO, speech-writer and adviser on sensitive correspondence, and I had found his chapter on Mr Suhrawardy throwing light on some facets of the great man’s official acts and personal traits which are normally missed by biographers. Let me quote him on the subject of the discussion.

“Suhrawardy’s commitment to Pakistan as a single, united nation was an article of faith with him. His patriotism as a citizen of Pakistan could never be questioned. He would always attempt to put in perspective the ‘grievances’ of East Pakistan whenever the issue was raised by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There were several occasions when he ticked off Mujib when he thought him to be getting too emotional. Mujib would often turn to me for succour. Pressing my knees, as he was wont to, he would say, ‘Qayyum Bhai, please tell Netaji (as they all called Suhrawardy) not to rebuke me in front of others.’”

Again, “Referring to relations between the two wings of Pakistan while addressing a mammoth public meeting at Paltan Maidan in Dhaka on 26 March 1957, Suhrawardy said, ‘There is no difference between East and West Pakistan. We are Pakistanis first and Pakistanis last. It is wrong to say that West Pakistan has been oppressing East Pakistan. The same set of people who have oppressed you have oppressed West Pakistan. We are one. Our prestige is founded on the sense of unity. My one success has been that I have removed mutual hatred from Pakistan’.”

In this regard Mr Qayyum says, “It is my firm conviction — however misplaced in many a myopic eye — that had Suhrawardy not got caught up in Pakistan’s ‘political phenomenon,’ and been allowed to pursue his cardinal objective of holding a general election, as he stated on assuming the office of prime minister, the nation would have been spared the ordeal of successive military regimes and the separation of East Pakistan.”

By Pakistan’s political phenomenon Mr Qayyum probably means the machinations, more aptly illustrated by the Urdu expression jor tor, of President Iskander Mirza who was a pastmaster in maintaining his authority by letting political parties fight. Mr Suhrawardy’s tenure ended when Mirza threatened to dismiss him if he did not resign because he had exposed the treachery of the Republican Party which was his Awami League’s coalition partner in the government. The Republican Party was Mirza’s own political product. Mr Qayyum narrates an interesting reaction to the event.

He says: “Suhrawardy’s resignation was so unexpected and sudden that the entire nation — except, presumably, those involved in palace intrigues — was stunned. The students of the University of Karachi put up a full page advertisement in Dawn inviting applications for the ‘most temporary post of Prime Minister of Pakistan’ from those who would ‘be willing to get the boot without notice’.”

Mr Qayyum’s account of his days with Mr Suhrawardy throws light on his political sagacity, his informal and human approach to life, complete indifference to vanity and pomp, the equal ease with which he talked to the lowliest in his country and the highest in world councils, his love of music and dancing, and (something never seen in any Pakistan leader) his dauntless courage in the face of physical danger. Of this last he cites two instances.

Mr Suhrawardy had decided to address a public meeting in Lahore’s Mochi Gate where the atmosphere was very hostile and the crowd (according to intelligence reports) ready for violence because of his avowed advocacy of joint electorates. Governor M.A. Gurmani advised him against going there. But when he said that he couldn’t guarantee the PM’s safety and would not like to be held responsible for physical harm to his person, Suhrawardy asked for pen and paper and wrote a signed note: “Despite the Governor’s advice to the contrary I am attending the Mochi Gate meeting. Should any harm come to me, including losing my life, he should not be held responsible.” Then, handing this note to an aghast Gurmani, he drove off.

At Mochi Gate the air rang with shouts and abuses. Ignoring the hail of stones and invective, the PM took his stand firmly at the microphone and said that in a democracy every citizen had the right to express his views. If anyone in the crowd wanted to speak first he was welcome to take the microphone. When no one came up, he began to speak and soon the shouting subsided. Miraculously, when he ended his speech after 40 minutes, he was greeted with “Suhrawardy zindabad!”

The second instance was when public opinion in the country was terribly agitated by the invasion of the Suez Canal area by Britain, France and Israel. A violent crowd of Karachi University students marched to the PM House and wanted to go inside. This was of course not allowed but they refused to go back. On hearing their shouts Mr Suhrawardy came to the gate and asked for a police van fitted with a loudspeaker. He climbed on to the roof of the van, microphone in hand. The guards did not want to open the gate for him but he ordered them to step aside.

On seeing him come out like this there was a stunned silence. He spoke to the students for nearly half an hour and explained the situation to them in logical words. So persuasive and impressive was his speech that the boys dispersed peacefully.

Mr Suhrawardy died in Beirut. At his funeral in Dhaka, there was literally a sea of humanity present to bury him in the grounds of the High Court. Many glowing tributes were paid to his qualities as a person and a political leader, but what his famous and trusted colleague Abul Hashim said about him was the most striking. “He died a magnificent pauper, receiving the burial of an emperor.”

Source: The Dawn

Date Created: 12/20/05

Date/Time Last Modified: 12/20/2005 12:23:48 PM

© 2004, Human Development Foundation. All rights reserved.
1350 Remington Road, Suite W, Schaumburg, Il. 60173
Toll Free: (800) 705-1310 | Email: info@yespakistan.com | Privacy Policy