Review of the Book, Case of Sindh by G.M.Syed
The book, ”Case of Sindh”, was first published in an artificial language created by Reverend. Ernst Trumpp a German Christian missionary,which will be explained subsequently in this article, entitled ‘Sindh Galha-ay-thee (Sindh speaks)1992 and was translated in English by Hameed Sabzoi 1994.
While giving grounds of his case G M Syed acknowledges that Sindh is a distinct Geographic entity where there are rivers, forests, lakes, mountains, deserts and verdant valleys. Through the ages it has been expanding and contracting. It has been independent and enslaved during various stages of its history but at the same time it has always had a pure and proud soul which has never accepted slavery or indignity. It has never surrendered to death despite the fact that attempts have been made to bend or break it. This spirit has flitted around Sindh like monsoon clouds as the last voice of the Dravidians of Moenjo daro. It has emerged from time to time. Sometimes in the shape of Raja Dahir, sometimes in the person of Dodo Sommro, sometimes in shape of Darya Khan and Maukhdum Bilawal and Shah Hyder Sannai. It has expressed itself in the love and the course of Shah Enayat. In the next para Syed adds, “I feel that these historic persons of Sindh have become part and parcel of my being which would like to reach a logical end now.” Without doubt it is Sindh’s geographic, national, political, economic, cultural and moral beauty which is the ingredients of its independence. It is the throbbing spirit which has forced me since early childhood to strive for the emancipation of Sindh and its people whatever shape my political struggle has taken south Asia; it has had but one local point-independence for Sindh. All that which I will now state about my political endeavors should be seen in the light of the submissions I have just made and so starts hereafter his case addressed to the court with ‘your honor!’ The 301 pages in this book are bitter with reproach and a unjustified lament, One would have given Mr. G.M Syed credit for his contribution in the making of Pakistan but his utterance on P-33 shows his true self, ‘I was aware even then (1940) that Muslim League was not an end in itself for me, but, a means to an end’ (P-33).
Keeping in view his venom, one tries to find the roots of the malady. The Crux, is, he is against Punjabi Bureaucracy its soldiery and the mind of U.P (P-46),but he never bothered to read how the geographic term Punjab was thrust upon upper Sindh by clever British in Cahoots with Hindu Bengali Babu’s in 1849 AD, after annexation of Sikh Kingdom, and that Punjabi as such was and is not our language, but a dialect created, by clash of two, Lhandha of west and Hindi of Par’ab, Vulg. Purbi [across the River/east] over a long period of time the actual historical/geographic Punjab, is now called East Punjab. It must be kept in mind here that, two alien languages, Urdu and English were likewise thrust upon us firstly in our Courts as they replaced our old laws by the Anglo-Saxon, 1850-1854.
The True ambition of Mr. G.M Syed and so his ends, was to remain within oneness of India. ‘I was for an independent India with complete autonomy for the provinces. It meant that there should be two federations, one for the provinces with Hindu Majority and other Muslim majority provinces and which two should for specific purposes act as a confederation on the bases of equality of members and ministers’ (P-81/82). In other words he wanted one federating part named as India and the other Pakistan. Which only shows how shallow his convictions for his version of Sindh were, Had he studied our past he would have understood that, when old historian referred to Sindh Va Hindh, The Sindh was the whole Indus Basin, and Hindh all those East of the line of Jumana [purbi].
G.M Syed was much impressed by a Hindu writer, Dwarka Parshad Sharma who wrote a book Sindh Ka Prachin Ittehas (part II) in which the author brings out a fallacious map of Vedic Era, and states that while Gandhara and Kekeya were indeed Sindh yet Sindhu Desh was an entity by itself. G.M Syed quotes sharma, in his book on P-215-217 and builds his case around it.
And so the concept of Sindhu Desh not realizing, that the word ‘desh’ is not found in any of the Dialects of Sindh Language. Here We find a repeat of what one saw later in East Pakistan, Hindu Sanskrit drunk intellectual of later half of 19the Century, had convinced the British that only recourse to have a stable Bengal devoid of Islam was to expunge its old Muslim Literature, leaving aside the deadly works of Tagore typical Hindu style outwardly sweet and inwardly poisoned, in 1880 the Bengal Government ordered that henceforth the perso-arabic Bengali script used in the Courts/offices was to be abolished, and Deva-nagri script was to be used in Print, and Kaithi script was to be used in all petitions or hand written. With no references left, for anybody to recheck from, so the field was cleared for likes of Tagore, who changed the literature of Bengal by infusing in the Hinduism to hilt not bothering that historically it had been Buddhist and later Muslim.
So British in cahoots with Hindu merchant wealthy classes who wanted to create a new language of their Gold mine- Sindh and which they termed as lower and upper Sindh of Bombay Presidency hired the services of a Christian missionary, a German Rev. Dr. Ernst Trumpp who had been earlier entrusted with translating the Bible in local dialects of Sindh valley. This job of creating a new Grammar of new Sindhi, he completed in 1872 and dedicated the work to Sir Bartle Frere [who came from a staunch Christian clergy family] and was Chief- Commisioner of Upper and Lower Sindh Province, and later Governor of Bombay Presidency and remained much under influence of a Fanatic Hindu, Seth Naomul Hotchand who ensured, that the humble servant Ernst Trumpp should interpolate in a theory that Sindhi was indeed from Sanskrit Family and so the infusion of Kanuji Hindi Dialect Loan words in it ‘o’ ending and ‘jo’.Whereas the reality was pointed out by Prof. Dr. Ghulam Ali Allana of Institute of Sindhology publication number 176 ,on pages 68/69,clearly states that, The Language of Indus valley from pre-historic to present is the same as found in Lhandha-sindhi Group, After comparing morphological and syntactical patterns of Sindhi/saraiki/Lhandha, it has been proved that there is No relationship whatsoever, between them and Sanskrit !
This new artificial language of Ernst Trumpp was based on Vichla sub-dialect of Lar,The Lower Sindh had been the region which was gradually re-claimed from the sea and so ‘lar’ means the sloping grounds. The massive flow of united waters of sindh river after Josh e Ab, as it enters Lar region becomes known as Mehran [great river] and ceases to be called Sindh, which had brought in silt from upper Sindh basin since ages and caused due to heavy silting this sloping Land and receding back of the Sea. The very Grammarian of this new language Ernst Trumpp states in the opening Page 2/3 of his book ‘Grammar of Sindhi Language (1872).The Northern or Saraiki Dialect has remained far more original has preserved the purity of pronunciation with more tenaciousness than southern one (Lar -Vichla)His humor is ironic as he further elucidates this point by giving a famous saying said in Sariki/sindhi- English translated as.
”The learned of ‘Lar’ is an ox in Upper Sindh”.
G.M Syed being from ‘Lar’ one need not add here more. G.M Syed declares Arabs as Barbarians who destroyed his mythical Raja Dahir and so ended his loved Hindu Rule in Sindh. Yet what he fails to comprehend is he himself in his book while narrating his background stresses forcibly that he belongs to an old saint family of Sindh which has lived here for 20 generations, which ironically is an Arab Family. Syeds, being pure Arabs from the Line of the Prophet. For a confused man like GM Syed who ends his-case of Sindh with a slogan, Jai- Sindh’. One cannot help be reminded of a letter written to GM Syed by his friend Pir Ali Mohammad Rashdi-in a jest that if he kept his rant of Sindhu-Desh his epitaph would be:
“Here lies a man who tried , who wanted good of evil. He started off as a revolutionary but ended up as an extreme reactionary’. And whose struggle in national affairs created confusion rather than improvement”.