actions of founding leaders of a nation, which after lead to some fatal results?
I mean action and not the person in totality. After all, leaders are humans and they can commit mistakes.
like people in Pakistan avoid talking about / against Quaid e Azam’s decision of imposing Urdu on Bengalis, which lead to language movement and resentment in East Pakistan (today’s Bengladesh)?
Its not about 16th December, 1971. I attended a book launch ceremony where Mujahid Barelvi (anchor) told that when Begum Shaista Ikram raised a question about Urdu being imposed on Bengalis, she was given a shut call by Mr Jinah. Aitzaz Ahsan (whose book was being launched) went on to say that its one of the reasons for our downfall that we suppressed questioned from day 1.
In another session Dr Hamida Khuhro (daughter of first Premier Sindh Ayub KhuhRo) revealed that Sindh was under burden, as it was a new province (separated from Bombay residency in 1936) and was servicing Debt for Sukkur Barrage in 1947. It not only accommodated migrants, but also provided offices to central government. This had consumed all its resources. Then came a demand to transfer all the available funds to center for Kashmir war. Ayub KhuhRo denied and said that these funds are for spending on education and health, but he had to transfer those funds to center as Mr Jinah ordered so.
Another case was related to Liaquat Ali Khan. Having provided provincial assembly offices to center, Sindh assembly was using these offices when center was not using them. Then came a demand to transfer Sindh’s capital from Karachi to Hyderabad. Considering the shortage of funds and the limited funds transferred to center (which never returned back), this demand was opposed. Liaquat Ali Khan said that its difficult to have one single city a capital for center and a province. To that Ayub KhuhRo argued that when Calcutta can remain capital of united Bengal and British India for so many decades why can’t Karachi be capital for Sindh and Pakistan at a time. This time Mr Jinah understood and accordingly the demand was taken back.
Is this just with Pakistan or other nations also have such attitude towards founding leaders?
founding fathers are ‘sacred cows’ … no negative comments are appreciated. i think if the observations about them are true then we should discuss it. there is no harm in doing so.
i think it’s true for most founding fathers of most countries that it is discouraged to criticize them.
for me, no one is a ‘sacred personalities’ except our Prophet [saws].
Muqqawwee Bhai, this is a very reasonable question .Ofcourse we are all brought up with these national icons' revered and we all have come across with news and various reports of people being penalised for criticising these icons’.So it is quite natural that we may think as to why these ```icons’ can not be subjected to criticism.But on the other hand the state perspective generally,will be that these `icons’ once played a big role in a country’s liberation/freedom and any act of questioning them may well lead to questioning the identity and existence of the state itself.
In India or Pakistan,such criticism can maximum fetch a prison term but there are countries like North Korea where such a criticism can lead to execution.
You mean you cant say anything against the actions of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, etc at public forums and media and result is distorted (made-up) history as is the case with Pakistan.
i meant on the ‘street level’…social media is freer. no one can dare criticize in speeches on the streets or else he will be in trouble as Arleiter said.
But Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi from Bengal and G M Syed from Sindh also played major role in making of Pakistan. They were later labelled as traitors, so the bold part seems to have selective implication. No?
A couple of years ago,a couple of girls in Mumbai were arrested and put behind bars after they criticized online the total shut down of Mumbai, the Shivsena observed after Mr.Thackeray’s death.
Yes of course I know.You know in SriLanka,journalists are abducted and killed for criticism against the government.Press offices are attacked for unfavourite news.
Founding fathers were just humans like us and they made mistakes. I personally think including Bengal as part of Pakistan while ignoring Kashmir was a mistake. But then I agree that one can not criticize openly as it would be taken as something close to blasphemy.
I think there was a ban on Suharwardi to enter West Pakistan (heard it from Mujahid Barelvi yesterday). It may not be true, but its a well known fact that the mover of Pakistan resolution Sher-e-Bangla AK Fazlul Haq was called a ‘traitor’ by establishment in 1950-60s.
Everyone knows what happened to G M Syed. He lived till 90s and from around 40-50 years in Pakistan, he remained in Jail / house arrest for 25-30 years.
I don’t think criticism is not allowed … So much that the years of propaganda has moulded the mindset of people to believe that to do so is tantamount to treason or at least unpatriotic … With all the effort put in to convince Indians to part with their fellow people and call them others be they Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Punjabi, Sindhi or Bengalis … People, our own parents will speak with disdain and contempt towards other races purely because that is how it was made to be so from the years of propaganda.
The forefathers are considered slightly immune from absolute criticism because if they were wrong then our whole premise of Pakistani nationalism is wrong. No one is ready or has the guts to admit that … However, in the years of animosity to develop national identities did those forefathers ever think to consider that we would make enemies of our neighbours? Did our forefathers ever think that for us to be at each other’s throats would make us all easier pickings for the previous colonisers? Did our forefathers not think that the British Raj had full control over us despite being amidst us or not?
With all of our big thinkers and drinkers … Did we ever have the guts to say we were wrong? The trait of success in the West … Is a realisation of their shortfalls … And bolstering them … We don’t even admit to ourselves that we have any shortfalls and that also has poisoned us in religious circles too … We are so huffy about religion … It is no longer about truth but about representing a club … A membership that we go in to. Simply by asking why we can’t criticise is itself criticism … Problem is the wrong people ask that question.
an interesting subject and I got a phone call in the midst.
See,Mr.Suhrawardy protested against Ayub’s presidential system under 1963 contitution and he was greatly disliked by Ayub.Also Mr Suhrawardi ,was seen as a threat because he had objected to the new changes.In any case,thsi would be the fate of a dissent voice.
Mr.Syed,ofcourse as well know he had issued calls for armed struggle.So state could not have tolerated it in anyway.`
