you are nitpicking on semantics, pakpatriot. i am not saying Jinnah was a religious zealot. but segregating people socially and politically based on their religion is NOT secularism. i for one do not think badly of Jinnah, to me he is a more pragmatic less socialist right-leaning version of nehru. maybe he did want secular laws and equality for all religions in pakistan, but that does not change the fact that he was a supporter of the two nation theory - the hindu nation and the muslim nation. a secularist wouldnt divide people into nations under the religion tag. anyhow, its a trivial matter.
Queerio : If you look into it .. Jinnah did not want a territorial partition of India..it was Nehru and Mountbatten who forced him into partition..he would probably have preffered a loose federal system with the name Pakistan thrown in for the North West and North East group of States.
Btw I love the newspaper headline Jinnah partitions BJP haha
No, because I feel strongly that Jinnah simply failed to anticipate the fall out of this Direct Action Plan. A lot of what happened during that time was unanticpated. Gandhi to his credit tried to attone for whatever violence he might have inspired, Jinnah didnt. But to say that he wanted their to be civil war is inaccurate and not in line with his past actions. Its well know hat he wasnt an aggitator. He didnt agree with aggitation for the sake of independance. Thats the major fallout that occured between him and the Congress..
This snt knitpicking. Im simply saying that the Partition wasnt as simple as it seems. Jinnah died before we could really get to know him. But going by what he said, how he behaved, what his friends and family have said of him, this is the most accurate and non Biased assesment one can male. Bro, secularism is not defined by the make up of your society. Jinnah was purely a politician. He didnt even see himself as a “Mohamaden.” He was once offended when Gandhi refered to him as the most influential Mohamaden around! He say himself as a member not of a Religious group, but a political group. And thats how he say the partition, in terms of two political groups. Jinnah didnt even want Pakistan to be devoid of NonMuslims. His intent was to have the Hindus and Sikhs living in the North West India to remai there. And I dont even think he wanted the Indian Muslims on the now Indian side of the broder to have to migrate unless they wanted to. He simply wanted a Muslim majority state comprising the areas which were already Muslim majority, that being Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP, and Kashmir. Your leadership, Nehru and Gandhi both acceted this. Nehru was far more guilty because of his overemotional approach, (and your congress memeber admit this) he back tracked on the Congress Mission agreement and sealed everyones fate.
The problem with partion was the haphazard way in which it was conducted. Mountbatten was in ahurry to wrap things up, Jinnah wanted to lead his country because even then he was starting to get sick, and Nehru put the nail in the coffin with his rejection of the plan. They should have hammered out the details, decided on Kashmir before hand, decided on Hyderabad and Goa aswell. They should have kammered out the make up of the governments of these countries. They should have decided the demographic make up of the newe states. They should have gotten control of the areas that were to become Pakistan particularly in Punjab so as to avoid the bloodshed. Because all this wasnt done, we will bnever know the intentions of the people involved including Jinnah. And a secularist could seperate the two, BUT NOT ON RELIGOUS LINE AS YOU SAID IT. He divided it along political line. Your confusing Muslims the political group which they were, with Muslims the religious group. Partition really had nothing to do with religion.. Even the Pakistanis are spilt on this, but I honestly think that an honest look at history will reveal the fact the way I present them. This in accordance with what most historians will tell including people like wolpert and Jinnah’s own Daughter.
Protests possibly.. Not every protest can turn into a bloodbath. Do you think Nehru ecpected a Bloodbath when he consented to Partition? Did Gandhi not think civil disobedience might turn to violence in some places? Trust me Anjaan saab, none of the leaders back then were out for blood, especially not Jinnah… It just doesnt fit his character! You need to try and get over your bias!
Why are you opening those old wounds now? all he meant was for muslims to do some exercise while carrying some sharp objects …too bad the spoil sport Hindus will happen by
So what, I mean can you say anything to prove them wrong, atleast they are discussing something, all you could do is come here and point them out? But wait, youre also against ‘secular’ Jinnah, so maybe you should side with these RSS extermists.
Heres something for the Indians on the board. While you guys claim Jinnah was not secular, our religious extermists on the other hand claim he was very secular indeed. It just depends on how people think, thats all.
Indians fails to remmebr that most of the religous Islamic groups were opposed to partion! How could a plan that they claim was based on religous divisions between Hindu and Muslims not have the support of Muslims parties...
The REASON! They say Jinnah as another Kemal attatruk. They felt that Pakistan was an excuse to secularize the Indian Muslims...
Something interesting! Jinnah gave a call of ‘Direct Action Day’ and thousands of Hindus and Muslims got killed in riots in north India as a result of this historical threat call.
Pak Patriot, you do not know about it…..as you were not there, or any part against your likes is a semantic history……….this is the best excuse I have come across on gs.
And off course would like to know which religious groups were against partition.
that is he wanted a state where muslims could run their writ because of being a majority. that is exactly opposite of secularism. Jinnah may be a westernized anglofile dude who drank, ate pork slept with kafir women and was not religious in any sense of the word but his politics was motivated by communal worldview and his legacy is very un-secular.
Mujeeb partitioned the Muslim League?