Why can't you criticise

[diwana]

Re: Why can’t you criticise

@muqawwee123

I have provided you the reference and my sincere advice after giving reference to you is do research on your own. In that article President of Karachi Chambers refers to Ayub Khan statement that when he sent delegation to East Pakistan for distribution of PIDC’s assets he came with a response ‘They don’t need Division of PIDC’s assets, they need division of Pakistan’. This chapter also talks about how well aware business community was for this separation that they avoid investing in East Pakistan as early as early 1960s. Rest you can study on your own. Its a book easily available at Ferozson’s and they deliver everywhere in the world

I didn’t criticize Jinah but just referred his decisions that proved wrong and fatal in long run as per various historians. He was a human-being and we should have courage to look at mistakes of human-beings, be it our respected founding leaders.

Thanks for writing some ‘hint’ as to what might be written in that book.

You are not correct on both points you mentioned.

1- Your statement which you wrote simply shows those people did not want to invest since they knew East Pakistanis wanted division. Right?

Where does this mean the Trade community was somehow responsible for division?

(If still not sure, please read your own statement again)

2- Your thread is titled about criticism.

Then you mentioned language decision of Jinnah was wrong since somehow it brought the division. Basically criticizing him.

I mentioned that language decision was NOT the reason for division. It was already dead by 1956.

Then you said "I didn’t criticize Jinnah BUT just referred to his decision that PROVED to be WRONG and FATAL in long run.

Bhai! How many times you will go back and forth oh this matter before you accept the language decision by Jinnah was NOT what brought the division and you actually criticized Jinnah for wrong reason?

Please feel free to bring any other criticism for Jinnah. Thanks.

So far your criticism for him ( as per your thread title wants to bring) has not been proven valid.