This has reference to the lecture delivered by Prof. Dr. David Lilmartin of North Carolina University, organized by the Pakistan Study Centre Punjab University Lahore and reported in practically all major newspapers on 19th May, 2009. The topic of the lecture was "The Creation of Pakistan: Role of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah" In his lecture he asserted that "Because of disunity among Muslims, Mohammad Ali Jinnah had presented a demand for a separate country as a unifying symbol". It is all non-sense to say the least. It shows lack of knowledge of Indian History on part of the said Professor, or may it be a deliberate attempt to distort facts and undermine the ideology of Pakistan and thus create confusion. A reference has also been made to Ayesha Jala's book, "The Sole Spokesman". I have not read the said book therefore I cannot express any opinion about it. I would however like to advise the North Carolina University Professor to spend some of his time on perusing through the Indo-Muslim history of yore and carefully study conditions of the Muslims in India about half a century before partition to know the true facts. It will give his the "why" of Pakistan. It will show him that the Hindus and Muslims are two different people, they differ with each other in every aspect of life, they live, eat and dress differently, their history is different, heroes of one are most despised villains of the other. They fought wars, there were random killings and frequent political and social attempts to amalgamate the minority Muslims into the bigger whole. It is true that Jinnah was a staunch nationalist when he entered politics in 1905 as a member of the Indian National Congress. His maiden political speech at the annual session of the Congress in 1906 in Calcutta was a sensation. Addressing the British government he said, "If India is not given Home Rule, and soon, it will not be Boston Tea-chests but truck loads of Britishers that will be thrown into the Indian Ocean." He believed in Hindu Muslim Unity which he considered essential for independence of the subcontinent. He came to be known as "Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity" and "one of the subcontinents tried and impeccable leaders". What happened then that changed Jinnah, the ardent Nationalist into a separatist and demanded the division of the country. NOT the thesis now propounded by North Carolina Prof. Dr Lilmargan - "disunity among Muslims - as a unifying symbol" It were the deeds and misdeeds of the bigoted Hindus represented by the Indian National Congress dominated and dictated by people like M.K Gandhi, Pundit Nehru and V.B. Patil and the like, that disillusioned the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity to have presented the demand for separate country. Unification of Muslim was an aftermath of the separation demand. For arguments sake it is a question of egg first or the chicken? In this contest it is pertinent to note that the demand of a safe haven for the Muslims is not new. In the last quarter of the 19th Century Sir Syed Ahmed Khan urged the British government to recognize Muslims as a separate nation. Jamaluddin Afghani advocated that the north-western part of India be merged with neighbouring Central Asian Countries to form a larger Muslim State. Allama Iqbal in his famous Allahabad address in 1930, proposed that "Muslims of northwest India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determinations" There was no such talk of disunity of Muslims, all this time. So, Sir David, Mr. Jinnah's demand for the division of the country was a logical culmination of Muslim aspirations and NOT an attempt for Muslims unification. A glance at Indian political spectrum for the last 50 years before partition will convince any neutral observer that there was no other way for the Muslims but to ask for a separate safe haven. Start from 1911 with annulment of the Partition of Bengal forced by the Hindu leadership; repudiation of the Lucknow Pact; Nehru Report of 1927; failure of London Conferences; Congress volte-face on the tacit understanding between Congress and the Muslim League before 1973 elections to accommodate League nominees in the government: fate of the Cripps proposals; the great Calcutta Killings and massacres of Garmutaishwar, Bharatpur and Sikh states in Punjab; Quit India.... 'Quit India' movement of the Congress under directions of Gandhi; acceptance and rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan. These are facts of history that cannot be ignored, Professor. Pakistan is an established fact and so is its ideology and we Pakistanis would not allow any one, who so ever he may be, to shoot out imaginary interpretations about the ideology of Pakistan and create confusion. I would request all such intellectuals and eminent scholars. "Please for God's sake leave us alone." The writer is a former A.D.C. to Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah