What's new

At least one country is trying to listen to its 'Father of the Nation' - Ashok Swain

India in reality was always like this, like it is now...it is just that thin, fake, farce veil of secularism and tolerance is blown away by the Modi and company. Call it as the ultimate truth, as it is said the truth will show no matter how best you try to hide it.

And it is good that everything is out in the open now...the reason we should thank Modi, Yogi and the likes of them.
The truth is both India and Pakistan had a majority culture that was desi. There are two manifestations of this desi culture, the Muslim iteration and the Hindu iteration. Sort of two sides of the same coin. This desi culture was native to South Asia and was backward, traditional, supersitious, narrow minded, bigoted, averse to change. This backwardness [desi] had largely dominated South Asia with millions living in poverty and ignorance, generation after generation entirely uneffected by who was ruling them. Moghuls, British etc.

However in the latter part of British rule a small sliver of South Asians were co-opted and educated in the ways of modern world by British. This small group of people would go onto form the elite in both Muslim and Hindu communities. Men like Jinnah, Nehru, Iqbal, Gandhi were all products of British rule. They were 'brown sahibs'. After 1947 this group too over in Pakistan and India.

Nehru gave india it's British influenced Indian state. With some exceptions so did Pakistan. However under this thin layer of "gora sahibs" the vast ocean of desi masses continued living untouched by the loft ideas imbibed by their rulers. By 1970s changing face of Pakistani society mean't the "desi mass" began to bite the rule of "gora sahibs" by insisting their desi culture being incorporated by the state. Bhutto had felt this change and began to sing the songs of the "desi mass" even when he was not one. Bhutto's agreement to making Ahmedi's a class apart was the triumph of "desi mass" in Pakistan who impulse was cloaked as "Islam". That process only picked speed in 1980s and it reached it's climax in 2010s. However I believe the "desi mass" is now in retreat as the new generation wants benefits of modern world.

In India the "desi mass" is of course articulated as Hinduism. Hindutva is the face of "desi mass" in India. The majority in India have been slow on the take and allowed "brown sahibs" to prevail over the state but over the last two decades they have began to make their pressure felt. Ayodha and Gujrat massacre are analogous to the anti-Ahmedi actions in Pakistan of 1970s.

I think the reason was the "desi mass" has been slow in India is down to economics. India over the decades lagged behind Pakistan and most of the "desi mass" were locked in grinding poverty. Now trickle down economics and increasing urbanization will see Indian "gora sahibs" drowned out. Expect lot of chaos in India over next two decades.

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @OsmanAli98
 
.
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

― Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Easy, take it easy Jinnah Sahib. That sounds awfully like statement of a westoxified secular slave.

Really???

Is that what you have understood?
 
.
Jinnah is a greed man who traded rights of India Muslims for his personal politics.

Your emotions are understandable, but let's not blame Jinnah for the condition of the Muslims of India. He did what he could under the circumstances. Obviously it was not an ideal solution for all South Asian Muslims, but it did benefit some.

What we should also understand is that the atmosphere of the 1940s could be the same as the atmosphere we are currently seeing in India.
 
. .
Media keep him alive.... media can kill his campaign. Plus he is sad, Nawaz and co is leaving Pakistan and nation knows Zardari.
Hath ho gaya molana ke sath
FB_IMG_1573315207104.jpeg
 
.
I thank Allah for this man and our freedom.


R u kidding me?

Trust me...If Gandhi would have listened to Jinah in 1947, then we would not have to go through this painful process in our history...

Gandhi may have done great things..but his role during partition is not welcomed by many people...
 
.
Trust me...If Gandhi would have listened to Jinah in 1947, then we would not have to go through this painful process in our history...

Gandhi may have done great things..but his role during partition is not welcomed by many people...

anything Particular Gandhi could learn from Jinnah from an Indian Prospect ?
 
.
anything Particular Gandhi could learn from Jinnah from an Indian Prospect ?

I am not an intellectual kind of person...But i personally feel, when Pakistan was decided to be created for Subcontent Muslims, rather than makinh so much fuss about it, we could have amicable settled the migration of Muslims to Pakistan and India could have been a Non Muslim country..So we could have stayed like US and Canada..or take any example of good neighborly countries...
Just to correct myself, i am all talking about historical concept...I beleive the rights of our Indian Muslims in current form..
 
.
No. What does secular mean? Jinnah described it nicely. It means -

You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state.
Your statement implies you do not agree with him. Here it seems you agree with him
 
. .
I am not an intellectual kind of person...But i personally feel, when Pakistan was decided to be created for Subcontent Muslims, rather than makinh so much fuss about it, we could have amicable settled the migration of Muslims to Pakistan and India could have been a Non Muslim country..So we could have stayed like US and Canada..or take any example of good neighborly countries...
Just to correct myself, i am all talking about historical concept...I beleive the rights of our Indian Muslims in current form..
Pak/India could've been like US/Canada...or any other example of friendly nations with a similarity in culture. The problem arose due to Kashmir. India took Junagadh even though the Nawab ceded to Pak...India cited the Hindu majority as the reason for it. When Pak did the same with Kashmir...India turned around and cited that the Raja of Kashmir ceded to India...ignoring that Kashmir has a Muslim majority.

This is another topic that requires its own long discussion...so I'm not gonna go into details here and derail it. The point is that India in its hunger for territory invented a reason for continued hostilities. Hatred already existed between the two due to mass killings on both sides in 1947...India made sure that it will last by creating a conflict(over Kashmir).
 
.
.
Pak/India could've been like US/Canada...or any other example of friendly nations with a similarity in culture. The problem arose due to Kashmir. India took Junagadh even though the Nawab ceded to Pak...India cited the Hindu majority as the reason for it. When Pak did the same with Kashmir...India turned around and cited that the Raja of Kashmir ceded to India...ignoring that Kashmir has a Muslim majority.

This is another topic that requires its own long discussion...so I'm not gonna go into details here and derail it. The point is that India in its hunger for territory invented a reason for continued hostilities. Hatred already existed between the two due to mass killings on both sides in 1947...India made sure that it will last by creating a conflict(over Kashmir).

I am disagree with you due to my inherent bias...Again, this is the same thing i was quoting in my ealrier post...If India could have declared as Non Muslim nation, then there would have been no rationale for India with holding Kashmir valley with India...History could have been different...But if we declare ourselves as secular country, the fundamental rational to divide a nation 2 two parts in the basis of religion is contradictory...
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom