Army high command, not Bhutto, responsible for 1971 East Pak fiasco, says d

[Abu Basit]

Its fair to say that you cannot counter my strong argument with references from reputable sources.

yeah the supposedly strong argument gets busted by the fact that Jinnah never used the word 'secular in any of his statements and if you can prove otherwise, give us the source instead of wasting precious time of people.

and what Javaid Iqbal said is of no worth- it's just like saying that Prophet Nuh As' didn't brought Imaan as his son refused to get on the Ship- What a childish argument, judging father with the action of son.

 

[araz]

Army high command, not Bhutto, responsible for 1971 East Pak fiasco, says daughter

Islamabad, May 20(ANI): Former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s daughter Sanam, who lives in London and stays away from Pakistani politics, has issued a statement asserting that the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report had exonerated her father of the 1971 East Pakistan fiasco, and lay the blame squarely on the army high command under General Yahya Khan.

“Analyzing and probing the probable lapses of Pakistan Army during the East Pakistan debacle of 1971, the Hamoodur Rahman Commission did reportedly come up with a lot of intriguing and explosive facts, but its report remains a black hole,” a 16 May report of The News had said.

”Apart from fixing responsibilities on key Army officials, the top arbiter of his time had also blamed the then Premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto for the East Pakistan fiasco. However, as was expected of him, Bhutto had gone on to accuse the Enquiry Commission of exceeding its jurisdiction,” the report added.

“This is a complete travesty. Anyone who has read the report will testify to the fact that the report exonerates my father but lays the blame squarely on the army high command under General Yahya.

The fact is that the officers and men of the Pakistan Army were completely demoralised and devastated and, in order to rebuild their morale and honour, my father not only stopped the report’s publication but also put a ban on all media diatribe and propaganda against the armed forces,” Sanam said in a statement, which was sent to The News through her friend based in Islamabad.

“My father worked day and night to rebuild a broken country from the ashes of defeat and to restore the image and honour of the Pakistan Armed Forces. His reward was the gallows!” she added.

Sanam launched a strong attack on Bhutto-haters who, she said, continue to malign her father even so many years after his death.

“They thought that they had buried Bhutto for good, but cannot accept that Bhutto lives in the hearts and souls of even a brand new generation, which never laid eyes on him,” she said.

“The truth is that my father rules this nation from his grave and his enemies are unable to fathom the mystery of his legend. My father gave his life for his country but refused to barter its sovereignty and that is why despite the calumny he stands so tall,” she added.

Army high command, not Bhutto, responsible for 1971 East Pak fiasco, says daughter

What a load of croc!!! Do these people have no dignity ? Are they going to tell me and thousands like me who lived through those troubled times that Bhutto had nothing to do with it all. This lady is better off out of politics as she knows jack about it.
Araz

 

[T-Faz]

yeah the supposedly strong argument gets busted by the fact that Jinnah never used the word 'secular in any of his statements and if you can prove otherwise, give us the source instead of wasting precious time of people.

and what Javaid Iqbal said is of no worth- it's just like saying that Prophet Nuh As' didn't brought Imaan as his son refused to get on the Ship- What a childish argument, judging father with the action of son.

I am purposefully overlooking your posts because I know that it would not worthwhile to debate with you.

But I have to answer this statement of yours that Jinnah never used the term 'secular' for the sake of other readers.

First of all this word called 'secular' was not a popular term in those days and it had only been invented in the 18th century, so you can understand that the word would not come into mainstream prominence until much later, the 60's to be precise when it overtook the word 'humanism'. Humanism was used as a word to describe the sociological concentration by a state on humans and humans alone overlooking their caste, creed or religion.

When Jinnah stated is clearly pointing towards what could describe the word 'secular' before the prominence of this word.

You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual,

Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

I could go on but you should get the idea about Jinnah's intention and his concentration upon humanism and secularism through the use of their definitions.

Something a lot more applicable and used back then.

 

[Abu Basit]

I am purposefully overlooking your posts because I know that it would not worthwhile to debate with you.

But I have to answer this statement of yours that Jinnah never used the term 'secular' for the sake of other readers.

First of all this word called 'secular' was not a popular term in those days and it had only been invented in the 18th century, so you can understand that the word would not come into mainstream prominence until much later, the 60's to be precise when it overtook the word 'humanism'. Humanism was used as a word to describe the sociological concentration by a state on humans and humans alone overlooking their caste, creed or religion.

When Jinnah stated is clearly pointing towards what could describe the word 'secular' before the prominence of this word.







Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

I could go on but you should get the idea about Jinnah's intention and his concentration upon humanism and secularism through the use of their definitions.

Something a lot more applicable and used back then.

Normally when someone is short of arguments, he comes up with excuses like " I am purposefully overlooking your posts ". I really don't mind your closing eyes like a pigeon...

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

you forgot to quote the last line (the highlighted one). Now for the last 50 years or so, the tiny liberal/secular section has been quoting this speech of Mr.Jinnah to back their viewpoint that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan. I fail to understand the big fuss about this speech- rather, i'm compelled to say that lack of understanding of Islamic principles/laws have made some people believe that this speech is alien to Islam.

Let me clearly say that this speech of Jinnah sahab is perfectly compatible with Islamic system and he rightly said that in course of time hindus will cease to be hindus in the Political Sense, this might be a revelation for those unaware of our own Islamic history otherwise non-muslims held big positions in the rule of Caliph Umar ra'.Also the speech was to allay the fears of minorities as there was a massive propaganda going on that minorities in Pakistan will be treated like a third rated citizen.

Isn't this funny that the term secular as per T-Faz wasn't use in those days but our liberal section passionately claim that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan. either stop attributing the term 'secular to jinnah or tell us exactly what type of Pakistan Jinnah wanted?

The only armory the secular/liberals got is the 11th August speech (which they don't understand) and even in this speech Jinnah sahab didn't described how Pakistan will be governed. Now please bring something concrete explaining how Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be governed.

I believe now you will not purposely ignore me.....

 

[T-Faz]

Normally when someone is short of arguments, he comes up with excuses like " I am purposefully overlooking your posts ". I really don't mind your closing eyes like a pigeon...

Short of arguments, did you even read my posts in this thread or you are unable to understand what I am capable of writing.

All your posts are harping on about the sad state of Pakistan and attributing them to secular/liberals when its the Islamists with their Jihadi policies, madrassa's and Ummah dreams who have wrecked Pakistan.

Funny how you people continue to put forward inane arguments that have been repeatedly proven to be lies.

you forgot to quote the last line (the highlighted one). Now for the last 50 years or so, the tiny liberal/secular section has been quoting this speech of Mr.Jinnah to back their viewpoint that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan. I fail to understand the big fuss about this speech- rather, i'm compelled to say that lack of understanding of Islamic principles/laws have made some people believe that this speech is alien to Islam.

So how does that line not in agreement with secular principles, Secualrism require separation of religion and state. A state being run by a political system and when Jinnah says 'in a political sense', he clearly states that religion will play no part in politics of the nation.

Let me clearly say that this speech of Jinnah sahab is perfectly compatible with Islamic system and he rightly said that in course of time hindus will cease to be hindus in the Political Sense, this might be a revelation for those unaware of our own Islamic history otherwise non-muslims held big positions in the rule of Caliph Umar ra'.Also the speech was to allay the fears of minorities as there was a massive propaganda going on that minorities in Pakistan will be treated like a third rated citizen.

So you are trying to tell me that he wanted an Islamic state, how about his reaction to the suggestion of an Islamic state then.

For instance Jinnah is said to have told Raja Saheb of Mahmoodabad as to whose Shariah would Pakistan follow. Iskandar Mirza's version is even starker when he quoted Jinnah: "Shariah? Whose shariah? No. I shall have a modern state."

Raza Rumi: Straying from Jinnah's Ideal

Iskander Mirza once asked the Quaid, “Sir, we all agreed to go to Pakistan, but what kind of polity are you going to have? Are you going to have an Islamic state?” The Quaid replied, “Non-sense! I’m going to have a modern state.”

Was Jinnah’s Pakistan ‘Islamic’? – The Express Tribune Blog

Isn't this funny that the term secular as per T-Faz wasn't use in those days but our liberal section passionately claim that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan. either stop attributing the term 'secular to jinnah or tell us exactly what type of Pakistan Jinnah wanted?

lol, the only thing funny is how you are unable to understand what he said and my post which vehemently stated that the concept Jinnah envisioned for Pakistan is what a secular state is. The term secular state was coined much later and it covers the idea that Jinnah had thought of Pakistan to be.

The only armory the secular/liberals got is the 11th August speech (which they don't understand) and even in this speech Jinnah sahab didn't described how Pakistan will be governed. Now please bring something concrete explaining how Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be governed.

Just the speech, really, you dont know much do you.

How about this then?

Dr. A H Kazi tabled a resolution to commit the League to an Islamic constitution, Jinnah described it as nothing less than “censure” on every leaguer.

The Idea of Pakistan: Iqbal-Jinnah correspondence 1 | Pak Tea House

I believe now you will not purposely ignore me.....

Lets see if you stick around or run away like many of the others did who think Maulana Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan.

 

[Peshwa]

Greed and enrichment, are you sure about that?.

Greed and lust for Power....Please read my post again carefully

To begin with, I was referring to the general traits of Politicians of both countries....however, this very much applies to even those of pre-1947 India.

It was the lust for power for the Muslim leaders and the paranoia that Muslims rights would be marginalized in post independence India was what drove the movement for Pakistan...If this is not lust for power, what is?
On the same token, it was lust for Power that made Nehru to go through great lengths to become the first PM of free India (united or otherwise) and in many ways party to the partition.

And lets be honest...At the end of the day, Power overides Money...if you havent noticed. Nowhere in my post did I mention "enrichment" of Jinnah to be the motivator....It was power. And it makes complete sense that Jinnah would leave behind his wealth for power.

PS: Greed again is NOT exclusive to monetary incentive

 

[Patriot]

Greed and lust for Power....Please read my post again carefully

To begin with, I was referring to the general traits of Politicians of both countries....however, this very much applies to even those of pre-1947 India.

It was the lust for power for the Muslim leaders and the paranoia that Muslims rights would be marginalized in post independence India was what drove the movement for Pakistan...If this is not lust for power, what is?
On the same token, it was lust for Power that made Nehru to go through great lengths to become the first PM of free India (united or otherwise) and in many ways party to the partition.

And lets be honest...At the end of the day, Power overides Money...if you havent noticed. Nowhere in my post did I mention "enrichment" of Jinnah to be the motivator....It was power. And it makes complete sense that Jinnah would leave behind his wealth for power.

PS: Greed again is NOT exclusive to monetary incentive

What Power are you talking about?Jinnah knew he would be dead in few years before Partition but he went along with plan because he knew reality of Indian Political Leadership of that time and he made a good decision.So much for power that he ruled for a very short time only.

 

[Peshwa]

What Power are you talking about?Jinnah knew he would be dead in few years before Partition but he went along with plan because he knew reality of Indian Political Leadership of that time and he made a good decision.So much for power that he ruled for a very short time only.

Power for the Muslims.... power over the muslims....Power to control Pakistan's destiny....even if short lived. and I mentioned this about Muslim leaders in general as well.
If he knew of his impending death, even more a reason to complete his dreams.....Which he did!

 

[Abu Basit]

Short of arguments, did you even read my posts in this thread or you are unable to understand what I am capable of writing.

All your posts are harping on about the sad state of Pakistan and attributing them to secular/liberals when its the Islamists with their Jihadi policies, madrassa's and Ummah dreams who have wrecked Pakistan.

Funny how you people continue to put forward inane arguments that have been repeatedly proven to be lies.



So how does that line not in agreement with secular principles, Secualrism require separation of religion and state. A state being run by a political system and when Jinnah says 'in a political sense', he clearly states that religion will play no part in politics of the nation.



So you are trying to tell me that he wanted an Islamic state, how about his reaction to the suggestion of an Islamic state then.



Raza Rumi: Straying from Jinnah's Ideal



Was Jinnah’s Pakistan ‘Islamic’? – The Express Tribune Blog



lol, the only thing funny is how you are unable to understand what he said and my post which vehemently stated that the concept Jinnah envisioned for Pakistan is what a secular state is. The term secular state was coined much later and it covers the idea that Jinnah had thought of Pakistan to be.



Just the speech, really, you dont know much do you.

How about this then?



The Idea of Pakistan: Iqbal-Jinnah correspondence 1 | Pak Tea House



Lets see if you stick around or run away like many of the others did who think Maulana Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan.

be satisfied and have my words, inshaAllah i will not run away instead i will bust the lies spread by the tiny secular/liberal section of our society.

The August 11 speech is very clear, Jinnah simply said that once non-muslims become the citizen of Pakistan thereby accepting the ideology (Islam) for which it was created (due course of time), the state will not be concerned with their religion and as i explained earlier, this is 100% compatible with Islamic system and for this we have examples from the rule of Caliph Umar Ra'.

Our secular/liberal section is just trying to put their own words in the mouth of Mr Jinnah. Please bring the statement of Jinnah where he said that Islam has no role to play in politics.

I was looking for the statements of Jinnah with references instead of articles by Raza Rumi types where they say "Jinnah is said to have"- either Jinnah said or not said, let me give you an example what it means to be a statement:

Bahadur Khan (Nawab Yar Jang) asked Jinnah point blank : " I ask you Quaid-e Azam, whether or not Pakistan was going to be founded on the Quran?" Jinnah thumped his fist on the table and said, " Certainly, it will be based on the Quran".

(Muslim League Session, KHI. December 1943)

By quoting Raza Rumi, you are only strengthening my argument that lack of understanding of Islamic principles/laws/governance is the trait of seculars/liberals. They fail to understand the spirit of August 11 speech and misinterpreting it.

Raza Rumi quotes:

What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not theocracy, not for a theocratic state – Mohammad Ali Jinnah

another example of lack of understanding- this man "Raza Rumi" doesn't know that theocracy or theocratic state is not compatible with Islamic System, so Mr Jinnah rightly said 'no to theocracy. Raza Rumi types are wasting their energies in trying to prove that theocracy & Islamic system are one and the same thing.

So now try bringing statements of Jinnah instead of articles from Paktea-raza rumi-tribune where Jinnah is said to have something.

 

[Abu Basit]

the following saying of Jinnah Sahab is as clear as a crystal and the readers won't face any difficulty after reading this as to what was his views regarding the role of Religion (Islam) in ones live- private as claimed by seculars or a complete system as claimed by fundamentalists/islamists.

"When i hear the word Religion for madhab in english, my thinking goes to the private relationship of man with God (secular ideology) but i know very well know that 'Religion' in Islam is not limited .... I'm not a Molvi nor a Mullah nor do i claim to be an expert in Islamic studies but i have tried to study Quran and Islamic Laws own my own.

In the teachings of this great book Quran, there's a guidance for every aspect of life. The spiritual aspect of life, ]Social, Political, Economics (Islamic Ideology), to say there isn't any aspect which is out of the fold of the teachings of Quran. The principles and practicality of Quran is the best not only for Muslims but also for the rights of minorities in an Islamic government which is beyond imagination elsewhere."

(interview with students Usmania university, hyderabad deccan. 1941)

the words in bracket above are mine.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

So how does that line not in agreement with secular principles, Secualrism require separation of religion and state. A state being run by a political system and when Jinnah says 'in a political sense', he clearly states that religion will play no part in politics of the nation.

Sir, can you tell me that how do you separate religion from Islam??

 

[Vinod2070]

Pardon me but how much Mr. Jinnah used to follow Islam in his personal life?

From whatever I have read, he was not religious in his personal life at all.

 

[Abu Basit]

Pardon me but how much Mr. Jinnah used to follow Islam in his personal life?

From whatever I have read, he was not religious in his personal life at all.

a man passes through different stages in his life and there's a continuous thought process going on.

e.g. i can't blame a man who has given up drinking wine 'hey you used to drink in your youth'-

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Pardon me but how much Mr. Jinnah used to follow Islam in his personal life?

From whatever I have read, he was not religious in his personal life at all.

Jinnah did make Pakistan but our supreme Role Model is Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H). .

 

[Vinod2070]

a man passes through different stages in his life and there's a continuous thought process going on.

e.g. i can't blame a man who has given up drinking wine 'hey you used to drink in your youth'-

So did he stop drinking later in his life? Any links?