Why did the Indian Muslims choose the route of organizing togather as the Muslim League and create influence in the government to get their point and demands across? Were there groups back then that were calling for armed jihad against the British and Hindus? How come those groups didn’t appeal to the people and the idea of a Muslim League did?
I am talking about the time after the the British had complete control over India, not the time during the British were taking over.
I think it was the leadership ... they were focused on their goal and they were willing to work & compromise with others to get to the finish line ... leadership can do wonders and that is what is missing today..
This may also have been due to the fact that, in those days, arms were not as readily available as they are now.
Also, Muslims of India are generally more educated than Muslims of other countries. Hence they sought a political solution through reason.
Re: Why did Indian Muslims choose the peaceful political route to fight for Pakistan?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TeenDabbyWala: *
Why did the Indian Muslims choose the route of organizing togather as the Muslim League and create influence in the government to get their point and demands across? Were there groups back then that were calling for armed jihad against the British and Hindus? How come those groups didn't appeal to the people and the idea of a Muslim League did?
I am talking about the time after the the British had complete control over India, not the time during the British were taking over.
[/QUOTE]
Well Muslims in Indian subcontinent were divided between two groups, the constitutionalists, and the militants.
Constitutionalists were supported by the big land lords (90%), and the big business (10%). Militants were supported by Congress (40%), and Mullahtic idiotics (60%).
Constitutionalists were lead by Jinnah, Sir Syed, Iqbal, the Nawabs of UP, Bihar, Punjab, Sindh, Frontier, and businessmen from Bombay, Calcutta.
Militants were lead by Gandhi, Azad, Johar brothers, and smaller Mullahtics like Ataullah Bukhari, and Mashriqi and idiot Moplas.
Militants brought a lot of death, and destruction among Muslims and Hindus starting with Khalifa movement.
Jinnah opposed Militants and kept the constitutionalists on the course of peaceful struggle. Luckily for Pakistanis Jinnah was able to thwart Mullahtic idiotic Moe-doodi and other militants, otherwise we'd have been in the same $hite as Palistinians.
Re: Re: Why did Indian Muslims choose the peaceful political route to fight for Pakis
Must be those textbooks.
One more possible reason: Indian Muslims were in a very unique situation of having to live with 80% non-Mulsims for over a thousand years - you are bound to have an fall-out effects from this.
Even today, in India there are Indian Muslims who prefer to be cremated than buried ! (eg current Indian President), there are those who prefer man-made secular laws, hell, they have Muslims in the BJP as well who adopted complete silence when it came to Ayodha, Gujarat, and we all know the Indian Muslim soldiers who patrol Kashmir.
So being such a huge population, I think its useful to analyze in terms of what the differing thoughts were that may have led to a fracture of unity rather than geographical lines : eg Indian Muslims v/s Algerian Muslims, v/s Turkish Muslims, etc.
The education point is debatable I think because certainly the Muslim elite were far better educated but what about the average Indian Muslim living under the Raj? I think Turkish Muslims had a far higher rate of literacy than British-ruled Indian Muslims, etc.
indian muslims have different backgound than pakistani you cant compare there is no equivalent of waderas in indian muslims.
most of the converted from dalit backgound except ashraf and foreign
originated muslims
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
indian muslims have different backgound than pakistani you cant compare there is no equivalent of waderas in indian muslims.
most of the converted from dalit backgound except ashraf and foreign
originated muslims
[/QUOTE]
The time period I am talking about, there were no Pakistani Muslims.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
indian muslims have different backgound than pakistani you cant compare there is no equivalent of waderas in indian muslims.
most of the converted from dalit backgound except ashraf and foreign
originated muslims
[/QUOTE]
Not true. Most Punjabis who converted to Islam were Jats or Khatris,Rajputs,Gujars etc.
In Kashmir, many Hindu Brahmins converted to Islam as well.
[QUOTE]
indian muslims have different backgound than pakistani you cant compare there is no equivalent of waderas in indian muslims.
[/QUOTE]
rvikz,
the thread is discussing ALL Muslims living under British India.
Anyways, just as there is no equivalent of waderas in indian muslims, there is no equivalent of AP Kalam (current Indian president) who wants to be cremated according to Hindu rituals rather than buried when he dies, and similarly there is no equivalent of Shah Rukh khan who marries a hindu, in complete defiance of Islamic Law, and then calls himself an "Islamic hero" in an interview with BBC!, neither is there an equivalent of the Muslims in BJP who remained silent over Ayodha and Gujarat! neither is there an equivalent of Salman Rushdie who is happily married to the model Padma Laxmi, need i go on?.........................
The tragedy with Pakistan is that Pakistanis still feel bitter about people like Maulana Azad etc. who did not support Pakistan's liberation!. They need to grow up and realize that individuals have freedom of choice and many Indians who are Muslims are quite happy with their choices! Indian Muslims' views (such as those mentioned above) should not be allowed to cloud decision-making in Islamabad - I really don't care about India or Indians because as far as I am concerned they are not Pakistanis and most of them seem quite happy with that!
What I fail to comprehend is my (Pakistani) governments utterly passive stance in foreign policy matters where 99% of resources are "wasted" on India! India is just one country out of 200-odd in the world today for us. The lazy and corrupt govts. (yes I include PPP, PML and military rulers), does nothing to move on from the past and insists on wasting time in one neighbour!
Indians can do whatever they want (including Indian Muslims) as long as they don't come to Pakistanis with their lousy, confrontational, superior-complex attitude and try to lecture us that the way to prosperity is a united south asia with de facto power resting with hindus and secularists like Farooq Abdulla and AP Kalam! We have our way, you have yours, let's respect that first and foremost instead of forcing identities and perspectives in boxes labelled "progressive", "fundamentalists", "terrorists", "backward/illiterate", "secular",.............................enough already.
Well, I guess now you understand what others have been saying in this thread: the likes of AP Kalam, Maulana Azad, Salman Rushdie also existed in the time period that teendabbywala is talking about and hence Muslims failed to come to a united platform (it was like a "forced compromise") and then those opposing Pakistan's liberation use that to create confusion in the hearts and minds of gullible Pakistanis!
so why pakistan should interfere in muslim lives in india when you dont in chinese muslims or turkish?
[QUOTE]
so why pakistan should interfere in muslim lives in india when you dont in chinese muslims or turkish?
[/QUOTE]
rivkz,
its the other way round! look at 1971! who was interfering in whose business?
Plus you may have skipped my writing:
[QUOTE]
Indians can do whatever they want (including Indian Muslims) as long as they don't come to Pakistanis with their lousy, confrontational, superior-complex attitude and try to lecture us that the way to prosperity is a united south asia with de facto power resting with hindus and secularists like Farooq Abdulla and AP Kalam! We have our way, you have yours, let's respect that first and foremost instead of forcing identities and perspectives in boxes labelled "progressive", "fundamentalists", "terrorists", "backward/illiterate", "secular",.............................enough already.
[/QUOTE]
India is more than twice the size of Pakistan and India has 10 times as many people: everyone knows that India is languishing to play a bigger regional role in South Asia and so one thing they are trying is what I have quoted above.
I would the happiest person in the world if Indian Muslims (and Indians at large) left us alone!. I don't want anything to do with Muslims from UP to Kerala - they have their own lives and I have seen how much they do for Kashmir! There are close to 700,000 Indian soldiers (Sikhs, Hindus and MUSLIMS) in this, officially recognized as disputed territory and so that is why I leave out J&K and only mention UP to Kerala.
And now the world sees what happens when you have a hindu maharajah ruling over you through "cultural affinity" - ie majority population is Muslim in Kashmir but because it was ruled by hindu maharajah he created a mess. So I don't want another mess with India continously trying to play its hegemonic designs through movies, songs, ":cultural affinity", United States of South Asia, (lol!!), etc.
And I am not alone: increasingly the new generation of Pakistanis are puzzled and bewildered by the amount of energies we waste on India and by the amount of cross-border "mushairas", "bollywood galaxy nites", "south asia" mantras we hear!!! We need to have Turkish cultural exchange programs, Chinese Martial Arts movies dubbed in Urdu ( i know they'd sound terrible), etc. - the point is that we don't want to be Indian BY CHOICE! and the sooner people in Delhi realize that, the better.
Re: Re: Re: Why did Indian Muslims choose the peaceful political route to fight for Pakis
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fair_&_balance: *
Must be those textbooks.
[/QUOTE]
OK! I leave my text books and you leave your Movie "Gandhi". Is that fair Mr. fair and balance?
F&B a question then! Who started the most militant-Muslim struggle in Indian subcontinent called "Tehrik-e-Khilafat"? You have three choices:
A. Jinnah
B. Gandhi
C. Maw-Doodi
If your movie(s) fail then you are allowed to guess. Let's see how good are you movies.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shamalee Fares: *
I think its useful to analyze in terms of what the differing thoughts were that may have led to a fracture of unity rather than geographical lines : eg Indian Muslims v/s Algerian Muslims, v/s Turkish Muslims, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Shamalee, there are two major advantages that worked for the Muslims of Indian subcontinent.
These two advantages put constitutionalist Muslims way ahead of the militant Mullahtics.
Algerians suffered from the lack of these two groups and ended up with millions dead. Same goes with Palestinians. Turks had a strong military that saved the country, but no constitutionalist like Jinnah.
its the other way round! look at 1971! who was interfering in whose business
when you get 10 million refugees you have to act.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
....when you get 10 million refugees you have to act.
[/QUOTE]
Rvikz, nobody has to be official Bhonpoo (his master's voice) on this board unless you represent Mullahtic idiotics.
For Bharat's stupidities in 1971, go read interviews of none other than General Manekshaw. Check out the Shah-Beg Bahini and their role in creating blood and gore in the then East Pakistan.
Having said that, Pakistani leadership including military, Bhatoo, and Mujib all messed up real bad.
There was no need to kill thousands of fellow Pakistanis. Pak army should have pulled out after 5 months of fighting. There was no way East Pakistan could have been defended with 4.5 divisions of army and rag tag militias of Al-badar etc. Strategically, Pakistan made many mistakes including the rejection of Poland's proposal.
Bottom line is that Bharat's role of almost 45% in East Pakistan. Sure some Bharatis can claim similar role of Pakistan in Kashmir. There is thruth in it. However the difference is that Kashmir is disputed, while E Bengal was internatinally recognized teritory.
Both Bharat and Pakistan ignored the golden rules taught by Gandhi and Jinnah just 30 years prior, and the result was un-needed militancy and a lot of blood shed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Indian Muslims choose the peaceful political route to fight f
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by antiobl: *
F&B a question then! Who started the most militant-Muslim struggle in Indian subcontinent called "Tehrik-e-Khilafat"? You have three choices:
A. Jinnah
B. Gandhi
C. Maw-Doodi
[/QUOTE]
And you consider Khilafat movement a Militant movement? Any idea ho wmany people were killed in it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shamalee Fares: *
I would the happiest person in the world if Indian Muslims (and Indians at large) left us alone!. I don't want anything to do with Muslims from UP to Kerala - they have their own lives and I have seen how much they do for Kashmir! There are close to 700,000 Indian soldiers (Sikhs, Hindus and MUSLIMS) in this, officially recognized as disputed territory and so that is why I leave out J&K and only mention UP to Kerala.
[/QUOTE]
Damn right! Whats with this illogical soft corner for India's Muslims. They CHOSE to stay in India, so heaven or hell, its theirs. We should make no distinction between India's Muslims and other groups. They (so called Muslims of India) are so dead set against us and the nazaria-e-Pakistan, that they deserve everything thats coming to them..ok, I partially take that back, I only wish this upon those who oppose Pakistan.
I have no issues with Indian Muslims being patriotic for India, but if they oppose Pakistan, then I hope they get the Gujerat treatment. I know we are supossed to love all Muslims, but why don't we let the Muslims of India decide, where they fall?
Our Kashmiri brothers/sisters are ofcourse, never included in this.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
Damn right! Whats with this illogical soft corner for India's Muslims. They CHOSE to stay in India, so heaven or hell, its theirs. We should make no distinction between India's Muslims and other groups. They (so called Muslims of India) are so dead set against us and the nazaria-e-Pakistan, that they deserve everything thats coming to them..ok, I partially take that back, I only wish this upon those who oppose Pakistan.
I have no issues with Indian Muslims being patriotic for India, but if they oppose Pakistan, then I hope they get the Gujerat treatment. I know we are supossed to love all Muslims, but why don't we let the Muslims of India decide, where they fall?
Our Kashmiri brothers/sisters are ofcourse, never included in this.
[/QUOTE]
Yarr rajput, there is a reason why Indian Muslim feels negative about Pakistanis but i am not in mood of typing this afternoon...........but always remember that the Pakistan movement was mainly run by Muslims who were living in today’s India ( with Lahore -the only exception).....Today’s Pakistani Punjab was ruled by congress-based Muslim land lords (Khizar hayat and co)….. so if kin of those Indian Muslims who played a major role in creation of Pakistan are feeling negative about Pakistan, there got to be some reason....The majority of the young Muslim league workers that played a crucial role in creation of Pakistan was from Ali-Garh and Usmania University.......yes these Muslims made their own choice to stay in India after partition but they never ever hated Pakistan…..lets be logical.......as a matter of fact till 1971, Indian Muslims always kept looking towards Pakistan whenever they were in trouble…they never found the support they were expecting from weak Pakistani governments.
Eighty-eight percent of the respondents in a survey conducted by Milli Gazette in four Muslim-managed colleges in Mumbai, said that discrimination is not an issue for them. Asif Siddique, a management student, said “I am sure that if I have the qualifications and requisite competence nobody can stop me achieving success in life.”
Although Gujarat riots still stare us in the face but no one can deny the fact that a majority of non-Muslims of this country are non-communal and peace-loving. Communalism is the product of divisive policies of political parties and communal groups. The majority of Hindus live, work, and interact with Muslims without discrimination. In rural India dress, language, food habits, culture and occupations of both Muslims and non-Muslims are the same
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
Damn right! Whats with this illogical soft corner for India's Muslims. They CHOSE to stay in India, so heaven or hell, its theirs. We should make no distinction between India's Muslims and other groups. They (so called Muslims of India) are so dead set against us and the nazaria-e-Pakistan, that they deserve everything thats coming to them..ok, I partially take that back, I only wish this upon those who oppose Pakistan.
I have no issues with Indian Muslims being patriotic for India, but if they oppose Pakistan, then I hope they get the Gujerat treatment. I know we are supossed to love all Muslims, but why don't we let the Muslims of India decide, where they fall?
Our Kashmiri brothers/sisters are ofcourse, never included in this.
[/QUOTE]
Some thoughts below, however the borders of Pak were open till 57 for Indian muslims to move to new homeland.... I agree with you Indian muslims are Indian and we should treat them as such.
TWO-NATION THEORY
Letter in Dawn, Nov 27
I refer to the letter of Mr Kunwar Khalid Yunus (Nov 21). Mr Yunus is
very naive if he does not understand the situation of mass migration
in 1947. The plan for independence and division of India did not
include the mass migration of populations as it would have been
considered as madness in normal circumstances. In the event it did
take place because of mass killings.
The Pakistan leadership suspected that it was a conspiracy to choke
the newly-created state with millions of refugees. India, being a much
bigger and more established government, could absorb them. Under those
circumstances, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan was very sensible not to encourage
the migration wherever possible.
In any case, Pakistan could not absorb the whole Muslim population of
the subcontinent. It was never intended to do so, otherwise Pakistan
should have been given four more provinces - East Punjab, UP, West
Bengal, Bihar and Assam - on the basis of the total Muslim population
of India.
The two-nation theory was based on Muslim majority areas only. The
idea was that there will be a substantial population of minorities on
both sides of the border and both countries will be sensible enough to
look after their respective minorities.
KHALID AHMAD
London, UK