Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives.

In the narrative of Pakistan’s creation, the story is often framed as a unified struggle for a Muslim homeland. Yet, this overlooks the voices of dissent, none more compelling than Allah Bux Mohammed Umar Soomro, the former Premier of Sindh. A devout Muslim and staunch Indian nationalist, Soomro rejected the Muslim League’s Two-Nation Theory, advocating for a secular, united India. His defiance of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his mysterious assassination in 1943 expose the contradictions and betrayals at the heart of Pakistan’s founding.

A Muslim Nationalist’s Stand

Allah Bux Soomro was no ordinary leader. As Premier of Sindh, he refused to let his Muslim identity be weaponized for political ends. Aligning with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, he championed a vision of India where civic identity trumped religious divides. “I am first an Indian and then a Muslim,” he declared, a statement that encapsulated his commitment to pluralism and unity.

His principles were matched by action. In 1942, Soomro returned his knighthood, a prestigious British honor, as a protest against colonial oppression and in support of the Quit India Movement. This bold move infuriated the British and alienated pro-British Muslim leaders, marking him as a true nationalist. While the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, avoided the Quit India Movement, Soomro’s government backed it, further antagonizing both colonial authorities and the League, which saw Sindh as crucial to its Pakistan agenda.

A Threat to Jinnah’s Vision

By 1943, Soomro’s influence was growing beyond Sindh, reaching Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). His message of secularism and unity resonated with Muslims who saw no conflict between their faith and Indian identity. This alarmed the Muslim League, which relied on communalism to consolidate power. Soomro’s popularity threatened Jinnah’s narrative that only the League spoke for India’s Muslims.

Jinnah viewed Soomro as a formidable obstacle, publicly dismissing him as a “Congress stooge.” Soomro’s principled stand made him a target, not just in Sindh but in regions critical to the League’s vision of Pakistan. His ability to rally diverse communities around a pluralist ideal posed a direct challenge to the League’s momentum.

A Mysterious Death

On May 14, 1943, Allah Bux Soomro was assassinated near Shikarpur, Sindh, reportedly by a hired killer posing as a beggar. The official account cited personal motives, but the political context suggests otherwise. Soomro had been ousted from his premiership under pressure from the British and the Muslim League. His rising influence, particularly as his ideas spread to Punjab, made him a threat to Jinnah’s communal agenda. The timing of his death, just as his vision gained traction, points to a calculated act to silence dissent.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a leading Muslim nationalist and Congress president, mourned Soomro’s death as a blow to India’s unity. In India Wins Freedom, Azad praised him as a “man of great character,” lamenting the loss of a leader driven by conscience, not communalism. The murder was not just a personal tragedy but a blow to the vision of a united India.

Erased from History

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives. This erasure is deliberate. His life and death challenge the myth that Pakistan was the unanimous will of Indian Muslims. Many Muslims, like Soomro, opposed partition, advocating for a democratic, pluralist India. His assassination silenced a voice that could have altered South Asia’s trajectory, sparing it the horrors of division.

The hypocrisy is stark: a movement claiming to protect Muslim interests eliminated a Muslim leader who dared to prioritize unity over division. Soomro’s death was not at the hands of Islam’s foes but those who used faith to justify power. His murder underscores the cost of dissent in a movement that brooked no opposition.

A Legacy for Today

As Pakistan grapples with religious extremism and identity crises, Soomro’s story holds vital lessons. The unresolved tensions of its founding—when voices like his were silenced—continue to shape its challenges. Glorifying myths about Pakistan’s creation only deepens these divides. Honoring Soomro means confronting the uncomfortable truths of the past and embracing the values he died for: democracy, justice, and interfaith harmony.

Allah Bux Soomro was more than a Sindhi leader; he was a symbol of what South Asia could have been—a region united by shared ideals, not torn by faith. His mysterious death remains a haunting reminder of the price paid for dissent and the enduring need to reclaim his vision of unity.

On April 27, 2025, Hijab posted on X: “If any Indian Muslim sides with India on Kashmir, he betrays the ummah. If he desires Hindutva’s triumph over Muslims, he has fallen into disbelief. Whoever allies with them is of them. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:51).”

Indian Muslims Strike Back

The response from Indian Muslims to Hijab’s latest statement has been swift, sharp, and unapologetic, showcasing their deep-rooted commitment to India and their rejection of divisive, external narratives.

Zahack Tanvir, a counterextremism writer and founder of Milli Chronicle UK, cleverly turned Hijab’s logic on its head, pointing out the hypocrisy of his argument. Tanvir wrote, “How about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that gave bases to the US against Taliban during ‘war on terror’? Have they become disbelievers too? Is ‘whoever allies with them is of them’ applicable on Pak ISI? Then according to you, they are Kafir! So technically Indian Muslims aren’t allying with Pakistan on Kashmir! ”

Kashmiri writer and educationist Arshia Malik delivered a scathing rebuke, telling Hijab to mind his own business. “Hasn’t your ex-wife filled criminal charges against you for domestic abuse? Indian Muslims have enough problems with the dog whistler Zubair and the DJ activists like Sayema, Arfa, Rana and the Safvis and Naqvis. We don’t need your advocacy, oaf. India is a liberal democracy, it doesn’t give space to takfirism, something even the Kashmiris are learning post-2019,” she wrote.

Malik emphasized the diversity of Indian Muslims—atheist, agnostic, cultural, liberal, progressive, and more—all of whom coexist under India’s Constitution alongside the Hindu majority.

Famous debater Mohammed Shoaib didn’t hold back, responding with raw emotion: “M** ***** **** apni pakistani umma ke saath. As an Indian Muslim, I stand with my India and its elected Hindutva govt. F*** your ***.” His unfiltered anger reflects the sentiment of many Indian Muslims who feel insulted by Hijab’s attempt to dictate their loyalties.

Zaira Nizam echoed this sentiment with a succinct yet powerful statement: “Fck your Pakistani Ummah. I am Indian and I stand with my country that is Bharat.” Her words encapsulate the fierce national pride that runs through the Indian Muslim community.

Advocate Shoeb Siddiqi, General Secretary of All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz (AIPMM), challenged Hijab’s interpretation of the Quranic verse, arguing, “He’s doing takfir of 200 million Indian Muslims for allegiance to their nation. Also (5:51) speaks of alliances during war with hostile enemies. Kashmir was, is, and will be an integral part of India—cry harder. You have no business poking your dirty nose here.”

Muslim activist Zafar Nama took a more confrontational tone, writing, “Hey *****, Kashmir belongs to India. If I have to choose between Hindu Rashtra and ‘Muslim Brotherhood Ummah Chutiyapa’, I will choose Hindu Rashtra any day. And yes, Allah has guided me to be in support of India and Humanity.”

Kashmiri journalist and geopolitical expert Raja Muneeb didn’t mince words, calling Hijab a “despicable vermin” and accusing him of hypocrisy. “You used the same Ummah argument to bed displaced Palestinian women. Didn’t you, you shameless son of a *****!” Muneeb’s response highlights the personal disdain many feel toward Hijab’s moral posturing.

Afghanistan’s human rights activist Wazhma Sayel brought a broader perspective, invoking Islamic teachings to counter Hijab’s divisive rhetoric. Quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:32—“Killing one innocent person is as if killing all of humanity”—she criticized Hijab for supporting forces that have shed innocent blood in Afghanistan. Sayel also referenced the Prophet Muhammad’s last sermon, emphasizing equality across races and condemning Hijab’s hypocrisy.

Policy analyst Amana Ansari underscored the agency of Indian Muslims, stating, “The people of Kashmir have their own chosen leaders. Indian Muslims know our faith teaches justice (Qur’an 4:135). We stand, we speak, we sacrifice—for our country, for our people, for truth. We have our voice. We don’t need foreign agents. Never did. Never will.”

Saif Siddiqi added, “Indian Muslims need no certificate from anyone. Kashmir is India’s pride, and we proudly stand with it. Supporting India doesn’t betray the Ummah—betraying India would betray our own identity. Stop dividing us with lies.”

Lawyer Aman Wadud delivered a particularly pointed critique, accusing Hijab of fueling hatred against Indian Muslims. Quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:8 and 5:32, Wadud wrote, “People like you have done the greatest disservice to Islam. You are doing the greatest disservice to 200 million Indian Muslim citizens. Give up your Oxford degree! Delete your account! SIT DOWN!”

Mohammed Hijab’s Controversial Past

Hijab, a British-Egyptian YouTuber and self-proclaimed scholar with a significant online following, is no stranger to controversy. His history of incendiary remarks and actions has often placed him at the center of polarizing debates.

In September 2022, Hijab was widely criticized for his role in inciting violence against Hindus in Leicester, UK, following tensions sparked by an India-Pakistan cricket match. According to a report by The Tribune, he was seen leading a mob of masked Muslim men, mocking Hinduism, and encouraging violence against Hindus.

In a video that surfaced on social media, Hijab was heard saying, “If they (Hindus) believe in reincarnation, what a humiliation of them to be reincarnated into some pathetic, weak, cowardly people like that.” He further taunted, “Deep down, they know we got the truth. If you want respect, then, learn to respect,” while warning Hindus against protesting the violence.

Hijab’s radical views extend beyond anti-Hindu rhetoric. He has a documented history of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments. In 2021, the Community Security Trust (CST) identified him as an “influential Islamist Youtuber” involved in anti-Israeli demonstrations in London.

During one such protest, he was recorded threatening violence, stating, “If those dogs come close to us again, we will see it as an act of aggression and we will kill those dogs! We’ll put them down,” as reported by Firstpost. He also reportedly led marches where crowds chanted, “We will find some Jews, we want their blood,” further cementing his reputation as a serial provocateur.

What’s From Pahalgam

The backdrop to this controversy is the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives, mostly tourists, in one of the deadliest strikes in the region since 2019. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken over the probe, deploying multiple teams to investigate the massacre in Baisaran Valley.

Security forces have launched a massive crackdown, demolishing the homes of four identified terrorists and detaining hundreds of overground workers. The attack has heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, with India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and closing border crossings. Amidst this, Indian Muslims continue to stand united with their nation, rejecting external voices like Hijab’s that seek to sow discord.

In this moment of crisis, the voices of Indian Muslims ring loud and clear: their loyalty lies with India, and they will not be swayed by divisive rhetoric from abroad.

Political Islam, once employed as an identity marker, now divides more than it unites.

In recent remarks, Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir articulated his ideological vision for the country with a clarity that many leaders deliberately avoid. He unapologetically reaffirmed the Two-Nation Theory and emphasized the enduring divide between Hindus and Muslims—a worldview deeply rooted in religious exclusivism.

For me, this honesty is refreshing. At least he is not hiding behind the concept of “Taqiya” (dissimulation) or the carefully crafted ambiguity that many political actors use. He owns his hardline position openly.

But we must ask—what does this ideological commitment to Islamic identity actually mean in practice? If Islam is the unifying principle behind Pakistan’s statehood, as claimed by its top military leadership, then why have fellow Muslims suffered under its policies—both at home and across borders?

In 2023, the Pakistani state forcibly expelled nearly 1.7 million Afghan refugees, many of whom had been living in the country for decades. Men, women, and children—many of whom were born in Pakistan—were sent back to a nation plagued by instability and repression. These individuals were not ideological enemies or agents of discord; they were fellow Muslims seeking safety and sustenance. The logic behind their expulsion wasn’t religious. It was ethnic, political, and economic.

This contradiction isn’t new. In 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, West Pakistan (now Pakistan) unleashed brutal violence against East Pakistanis (now Bangladeshis). According to historians, up to three million people were killed, and countless women were subjected to sexual violence. And who were the victims? They were not religious “others.” They were Muslims—sharing not just faith, but language, history, and family ties.

These historical and recent episodes raise a troubling question: Is Pakistan’s national identity truly anchored in Islam, or has religion been used selectively—as a political and strategic tool to justify repression, exclusion, and control?

The Two-Nation Theory, which underpinned the partition of British India in 1947, proposed that Muslims and Hindus were distinct nations who could not coexist peacefully in a single state. But this idea, though foundational to Pakistan’s creation, has since mutated. Rather than fostering a pluralistic Muslim society, the theory has been wielded to divide people further—between Punjabis and Pashtuns, Baloch and Mohajirs, Shias and Sunnis, Deobandis and Barelvis. The outcome is not national unity, but chronic fragmentation.

Instead of serving as a source of cohesion, Islam has become a battlefield of sectarian and ethnic contestation. Political Islam, once employed as an identity marker, now divides more than it unites. The lived reality of the Pakistani state contradicts its ideological claims. Whether it’s the suppression of Baloch voices, the marginalization of Sindhi culture, or the persecution of Shias, the nation has drifted far from its idealized Islamic unity.

This is not to say that Islam, as a faith or moral system, is to blame. The issue is how Islam has been instrumentalized by the state and military elites. When any religion becomes a political instrument, it loses its spiritual purpose and becomes a tool of coercion.

The youth of Pakistan—and indeed South Asia as a whole—deserve better than this endless recycling of exclusionary doctrines. They do not need more sermons on “us vs. them.” They need education systems that teach empathy, critical thinking, and historical introspection. They need media that values truth over propaganda. And most of all, they need leadership that champions collaboration over conflict.

True unity is not built by suppressing diversity. It is achieved by embracing it. Religion can inspire compassion and solidarity, but only when it is divorced from the machinery of state control and identity politics. A nation cannot find peace if its founding principle is fear of the other.

Pakistan’s future lies not in reinforcing ideological walls but in tearing them down—brick by brick. It lies in building bridges with its neighbors, reconciling with its own people, and redefining what it means to be Pakistani—not as a monolithic Islamic identity, but as a plural, inclusive, and humane society.

History has shown us where hate leads. It’s time to try something different.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.