History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Jinnah's lack of "criminal record" is no shock. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about Jinnah would know that he was the ultimate non-violent leader. This unfortunately is something few Pakistanis realize.

Jinnah studied, practiced, breathed, ate, and slept "law of the land". Remember he was among the top attorneys in the country. No other lawyer like Gandhi, Nehru, and others even came close to the grasp of Law the way Jinnah had.

Thus the non-violent sections of Pakistanis are proud of Jinnah's lack of criminal record. And you should be too, even if you are an Indian.

Remember Jinnah was among the finest Indian leaders who preceded Gandhi, and every "founder of India" leader.

I wish his health had not given way that quickly. Otherwise he would have helped Pakistan to be a prosperous, and noble state.

May Allah give Jinnah's soul a place in the Heaven. Amen

22

Re: History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak

^ Don't know about what quality of lawyer he was etc but question is - then what was his role in the independence struggle?

To me -

  • he rallied the muslim population
  • he brought some balance

But he wasn't the type that actualy confronted

Suna hai
23

I think you need to take a break from GS and check out your library to read up on "Da Man".

24

I would like to know more about Jinnah's contribution from you. Being an Indian, I assume that he's given the same respect as Gandhi. But what was his contribution to the freedom struggle against the britishers? I know of his contributions to the so called "freedom struggle" against the indians.

25

Re: History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak

Was there any struggle for independence at all??? Britishers had become so feable that they could not control such a huge country and they let it became independent.

26

With this attitude, and so much disrespect for a true-blue Indian leader, you won't learn anything my friend. You are destined to be stuck with the lollypops doled out by Indian high school's "official" text books.

Sorry!

For the others, there are many books that you ought to read. In fact why not go to the source and check out the actual letters, memos, and directives by the players of that era. Why to let a historian tell "his-story".

A lot of such memos, letters, and directives are part of the "Transfer of Power".

Make sure you don't let your own biases distort your reading. If Transfer of power is too much, then a concise reading is "Jinnah the sole spokesman" by Jalal. This book so far has the least amount of bias. Even better than the gora writers.

Happy reading!

Mehran gate scandal
27

Re: History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak

jinnah is only a leader for pakistani's he is not a leader for the entire sub continent..indian muslims and bengali's have never forgiven jinnah for weakening the cause of muslims in the sub continent.. neither did the ullema of deoband ...

The current state of affairs in pakistan is a good enough indicator for the kids to interpret history..no need for a distorted history.. no lollypop's no candy"s...

Sana Safinaz Controversial new ad campaign -- What do you think?
28

I think you totally misunderstood my intent. I hate people on a case by case basis, not by religion or nationality.

Anyways, no point in continuing the discussion.

29

And what was that cause that Jinnah single handedly weakened?

The Return of Kasauti (Kasauti I)
30

yup, this guys right most of us are dumber than a bag of hammers... burqaposhx displays that aptly.... the ones that have figured out what needs to be figured out are depressed by the trouble of going about communicating to the ones with deeply held convictions what was figured out, without being beheaded, its pretty depressing....

31

How would the cause of Muslims be stronger if Jinnah had not got his way?

What to do?
32

In a way he made the cause of Muslims weaker by dividing Muslims against Muslims, which indirectly favored hindus and non Muslims. To be honest, there was no genuine reason or cause to divide India on the basis of relegion. Joint Muslim population to day would have been the most power ful force of sub-continent to day had they were not divided.

Gentlemen Bismillah
33

Moududdi thought jinnah was a fool to ask for a seperate land.. he belived islam can easily conquer hindustan in next 3-4 decades as the fertility rate of muslims was the highest among all the ethinic groups..

It was precisely for this reason all the foundamentalist muslim organistaions opposed partition..

34

Shedil bro! You say that hurtful thing based on what source? Or this is just another example of "Sunni Sunnaaee kahani" like history?

Jinnah's whole plan was to use the strengths of Muslim majority provinces to address the weakness of Muslim minority provinces. How could he then be an advocate of "division"?

Muslim strengths in the provinces were mainly in two areas: Large land holding, and sheer dominance in the military from the Muslim majority areas. In the rest of the British-India Muslim minority had some small role in urban areas as low level clerks and successful Gujarati businessmen.

Gandhi and Congress knew finally understood this, and kicked out the Muslim majority provinces and this is how.

Just look at the British-India map of 1946 and you will find that Muslims dominated Sindh, Balochistan, Frontier, Punjab (Indian+Pakistani portions), and Bengal (BDesh+Indian Bengal).

The map will show that:

  1. 40% of British-India were princely states that were not under the control Dilli's British government.

  2. The remaining 60% of British-India was roughly divided between 30% Muslim dominated provinces and the remaining were the Hindu majority provinces.

Congress set about addressing these weakness by a grand plan.

  1. Cut up the 30% of the Muslim dominated provinces and reduce them to 22% of the future Hindu-India.

  2. Intimidate and occupy princely states and add their 40% share to the Hindu India

  3. After the princely states are fully digested, then create instability in the remaining 22% Muslim dominated area and cut them up wherever possible.

The same plan was put in place to dissolve Sikh majority.

Fast forward to 2007 (60 years after 1947), the situation is that the plan worked brilliantly.

  1. Hindu-India now dominates the map (77% of the British-India)

  2. Almost all the princily states are fully absorbed (with 0.75 of Jammu Kashmir the only remainging hold out).

  3. Muslim dominated areas are now cut up as
    ---- Pakistan as 19 % of British India
    ---- BDesh as 3% of British India

  4. Sikh dominated areas have also been chopped up. In 1947 Sikhs were dominated almost 4% of British India. Guess what do they have now? 1.19%.

Get it?

It was Gandhi and Congress's divide and rule scheme that chopped up Muslim and Sikh dominated areas.

And if you don't watch out, and protect the Muslim dominated areas then you will continuously see the chopping up. Funny that Hindus are very protective of the Hindu-India while Muslims (Especially the ex-W.Pakistani /current Pakistanis) are $tupidly tearing apart their own areas and almost on daily basis question the very idea of their own territory. With attitudes like this there is not much hope. Sadly!

**p.s. Please review the area statistics and you will also understand why the 1946 Mission plan was rejected by Gandhi (while accepted by Jinnah). Jinnah was successfully cornered and kicked out by the dominant power of
Congress

I hope everyone knows the details of Mission Plan.

**

35

Re: History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak

^ that would imply that Gandhi Nehru etc somehow presaged that BD wold separate in 1971 after they had both been dead for decades.

36

But Sikhs are still part of India. By the way what was Mission Plan? Is it same as the concept of greater India, where the coalition government worked for six months and later failed by Liaqat Ali Khan (Finance Minister) and Chaudhry Mohammad Ali (Finance Secretary) who refused to sanction chaprasi for Valeh Bhi Patel (Home Minister), complained to Nehru then Congress President, who inturn told Gandhi that this joint government was not going to work and accept Quaid's demand for separation. I think you better read "India Wins Freedom" before you jump to any conclusion based on propoganda by certain opportunist group.

One thing more, Kashmir and Junagarh was also part of the deal. Quaid compromised and accepted faulty division. Later in three wars with India regarding Kashmir issue, Pakistan lost East Wing in 1971. Kashmir issue is still un-resolved and perhaps continue till dooms day.

37

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, then President of Congress before Nehru, predicted this but failed to convince saperatists.

38

Dunno you are making fun of Gandhi Nehru or you have no idea of the history.

Just go check out the statements of Indian politicians from Dilli and from W. Bengal. There were threats of invasion of E. Pakistan, and talk of its destruction right from 1948.

39

Duh! Maulana Azad may sound like a big name now, but he was no better than Maulvi Diesel (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) in his days.

In the above statement, Maulana Azad was parroting his Congressi masters without giving a second thought to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" by the Congress leaders.

FYI. If you are hell bent on breaking something, and then it breaks, you can't go back and say "I told you so". I hope you understand this basic premise so often applicable to the law-breakers.

40

Maulana Azad was president of congress, ie. he was mater of all congress men. At that time all molvis including JI(Maulana Maududi), JUI (Hind-Maulana Mufti Mahmood fathher of Fazal) and NAP presently ANP of Ghaffar Khan were totally against partition. They were not congressi. Again I suggest read history rather than propogate your own creations.