Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?

[Subramanian]

There is truth to your first statement. Yes the Hindu merchants knew that Sept 16 is the DA day. So they stockpiled weapons and hired goons to face off Suhrawardy.

Congress knew about this too and So did ML.

However the pogroms in Bihar were carried out on behest of Congress. and Congress had advanced prep in order to teach those innocent Muslims the true power of Indian Congress. When people asked Gandhi why are you sitting in Calcutta while 1000s are being killed in Bihar, he callously replied "Bihar people do not listen to me".

Many Muslim bengalis got killed in Calcutta while Gandhi was still there. one of the result of merciless killings of innocent Hindus in Khulna (and smaller number in Dhaka).

On your second point about Punjab,

It was movie Gandhi that linked DA day and Punjab. Because it was a movie to reflect Indian sarkari school history.

So please do not get caught in Gandhi movie. You gotta study more to figure out what happened in Punjab. and simply do not link it to other events. Movies are seldom the true source of history especially the feature films.

Thank you

No,

I haven't seed Gandhi and I hardly remember my history text.

Most of my gauges have been from the Internet,commonly agreed upon history,some conversations with people who migrated from Lyallpur,Gujranwala,Lahore,Bahawlpur,Haripur etc.

And some conversations with my Grandpa's brother who was a judge in Lahore then,like that.

I do believe there was a connection but not so direct.

Bihar is different,the people there especially the Bhumihars are crazy and they had long resentment against the Muslim rule and they took their chance,not that am justifying it but i dont think Congress has balls to do and admit such things.

 

[FaujHistorian]

No,

I haven't seed Gandhi and I hardly remember my history text.

Most of my gauges have been from the Internet,commonly agreed upon history,some conversations with people who migrated from Lyallpur,Gujranwala,Lahore,Bahawlpur,Haripur etc......

conversations with individuals is good. But most of the internet stuff and "commonly agreed upon history" is simply sarkari school history from either Pak side or India side.

Just remember that Punjab's carnage was unique in Indian history. It seldom happened before and I hope and wish it never happens again.,


Before partition
-- East Punjab (Indian side) had 55-65% Muslim Punjabis. (depending on city/village)
-- West Punjab (Pak side) had 35-45% non-Muslim Punjabis (depending on city/village)

After partition
--- Indian Punjab had 0% Muslim punjabis (totally annihilated by Indian mobs)
-- Pak Punjab had 0% non-Muslim punjabis (totally annihilated by Pak mobs)
--- few exceptions were tiny Muslim population in Malir kotla, and tiny sikh population around holy shrines such as: Nankana sahib and Punja sahib


So many innocent Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims lost their lives. too many.

Who did what and how. That's a long story that perhaps should be covered in a separate steps.

peace,

 

[CrazyTycoon]

In an ideal world and an ideal Pakistan, Pakistan would be a secular state. Unfortunately, this isn't possible right now due to the overtly religious majority in Pakistan who'd oppose such a concept with all their might. The extreme religious types and Mullahs would go out rioting smashing shops, burning vehicles and persecuting minorities even further if Pakistan were to become a secular state. There is a significant minority in Pakistan that does want secularism but they don't hold much influence among most Pakistanis who are easily swayed by religious leaders or political leaders based on ethnic lines.

Secularism of Pakistan will happen one day though, it's simply a matter of when - even if it takes a century or two. The world is becoming more and more irreligious everyday.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

In an ideal world and an ideal Pakistan, Pakistan would be a secular state. Unfortunately, this isn't possible right now due to the overtly religious majority in Pakistan who'd oppose such a concept with all their might. The extreme religious types and Mullahs would go out rioting smashing shops, burning vehicles and persecuting minorities even further if Pakistan were to become a secular state

in some ways, yes you're right...and its quite sad but some of the lesser educated (and emotional) will smash things and burn over anything because that's all they know - rather than being productive citizens

i have a huge problem with both the diehard secularists/liberal fascists AS WELL AS some of the right-wing fundos who would spend more time talking about the importance of purda and virginity before marriage but then overlook even basic things like personal hygiene, education, independent/critical thinking, health awareness etc. etc.


both extremes are damned fools

Secularism of Pakistan will happen one day though, it's simply a matter of when - even if it takes a century or two. The world is becoming more and more irreligious everyday.

Pakistanis by and large need to wake up and smell the coffee and get their priorities in order....first things first:


lets stop electing crooks and liars to run our country election after election......that would be a damn good start!!!!!

 

[MilSpec]

Rejection of 14 points let to Allahabad address. Had they been accepted, none of it would have happened. Quite simply, it was Nehru's arrogance at rejecting them

These 14 points

1.All the people should be aware of their rights all the people have the freedom of religion freedom of sense.

As nehru and INC wanted secularism, this was agreed upon unanimously

2. All cabinets at central or local level should have at least 1/3 Muslim representation.

leadership doesn't and should not be based on religious background. Apart from that Mulims did not constitute 1/3rd of the population, hence was not appropriate


3. All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every province without reducing the majority in any province to a minority or even equality.

This is still practiced in India, hence was agreed to.


4. In the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one third.

Again, the 1/3rd number is and was too high


5.Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorate as at present, provided it shall be open to any community at any time to abandon its separate electorate in favor of a joint electorate.

Irrational practically


6.Any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and the North West Frontier Province.

Division of provinces of India was to be on the basis of language and not religion, hence was not-feasable

7. Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.

Was agreed upon and still practiced by Nehru's side


8. No bill or any resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourth of the members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill resolution or part thereof on the ground that it would be injurious to the interests of that community or in the alternative, such other method is devised as may be found feasible and practicable to deal with such cases.

1/3rd (33%)of the body would be minority and 3/4th of that (33.33%) would be enough to disable a bill, I wonder how the pariament would have worked then?


9. Sindh should be separated from the Bombay Presidency.

to diminsh the power of INC?

10. Reforms should be introduced in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other provinces.
I believe this was agreed upon by INC too


11. Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency.

this baically is demand for reservation which as always have been a contentious issue

12. The constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture and for the protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable institution and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies.

Why? Why should the constitution be partial to one religious groups, same should also be given to sikhs, christians, hindus, buddhists, jains, etc

13. No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers.
This 1/3rd muslim representation without the actual population to support the ballot is the main cause for rejection

14. No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the State's contribution of the Indian Federation.

Parliamentary bills cannot pass without majority which represents the states.

The strong federation and weak center idea was not even implemented by Pakistan post jinnah, so It wasn't just Nehru and Jinnah, but later the people of pakistan too did not take Jinnahs plans seriously

 

[Joe Shearer]

by the way - on this whole Ahmedi issue ---

the author forgot to mention a KEY point here which many hyper-secularist / socialistic - leaning 'enthusiastics' in Pakistan and outside tend to overlook:

it was a "secular" and "socialist" Z.A. Bhutto who started the anti-Ahmedi sentiments for purely votebank reasons (he wanted to gain support from the right wing Islamists)

it wasn't Gen. Z. Ul Haq's regime (which granted, did see the rise of orthodox schools of thought among segment of society)

curiously - it isn't just Pakistan. In so-called "secular" india and in Kashmir - there are Islamists calling for Ahmedis to be declared as non-Muslims. Hell - the same is going on even in Indonesia (where treatment of this group is much worse)



how convenient of the author to have over-looked the fact that much of the so-called "Islamization" was actually started by secular Bhutto.....as charismatic as he may have been, it seems almost as if his policy was to divide Pakistanis rather than unite them.

I was surprised to read this. Organised persecution of Ahmedis started much, much earlier, nearly twenty years earlier, and was in fact the subject of the Justice Munir Report.

In 1953, he and the JI led a campaign against the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan resulting in the Lahore riots of 1953 and selective declaration of martial law.[10] He was arrested by the military deployment headed by Lieutenant General Azam Khan, which also included Rahimuddin Khan, and sentenced to death on the charge of writing a propaganda pamphlet about the Ahmadiyya issue. He turned down the opportunity to file a petition for mercy, expressing a preference for death rather than seeking clemency. Strong public pressure ultimately convinced the government to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Eventually, his sentence was annulled.[8]

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I understand there are brewing differences even between the Lahore Ahmedi movement and the indian "qaddiani" movement....there are some subtle and not so subtle differences between the 2


i'm completely ignorant on this subject as i have little to no interest in it - perhaps some others would be in a position to comment on it

 

[MilSpec]

But you do know that Goras remained the top dog of Indian even after Aug 15. Right

And the name of that gora was?

Yes,

Say it!

Lord

Mount

Batton.

Got it.


peace to you.

You do realize that your country and leadership was formed by a party that was subservient to british and never ever in the history protested against them. As far as lord mountbatten being viceroy of india, may be you ned to learn your own history,

now here is your Epic Fail :
From 1947 to 1956, Pakistan was a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations, under two monarchs. In 1947, King George VI relinquished the title of Emperor of India and became King of Pakistan. He retained that title until his death on 6 February 1952, after which Queen Elizabeth II became Queen of Pakistan.

 

[regular]

Secularism will always be unacceptable to muslim world i.e common muslims. Why should muslims embrace something that is inferior when we have a superior form of governance in ISLAM. It has been proved time and again that secularism has been a epic
fail in the muslim world and this satanic ideology was always been forced on muslims by dictators and thugs. One eg. is how
Ataturk and kelamist forced secularism in turkey and had almost destroyed it until AKP came to the rescue. The biggest threat
to the muslim world today is these suckulars who are slave mentality munafiqs. Getting rid of these pest should solve all the
problem.

Excellently said brother!
These secularians are infact the Western breed enforced on us to take us out of Islam.We shold get rid of these evilz from our ruling elites and kick them out to their motherlandz I mean their western masterz.and keep our country Pakistan and Islam clean from any kind of satanist impurity....

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

there were times when "lord" mountbaton and Jinnah Sahib came close to exchanging punches and shoves - and here's this guy claiming Muslim League was "subservient" to the britishers


that's far from the truth......it angered the Brits to see this "Westernized Muslim" who smoked cigars and wore 3-piece suits and educated and polished in London would later become one of the biggest thorns in their side.


Jinnah Sahib ought to be a role model not just for Muslims of sub-continent but indians as well. He was a man of principles and virtues and we salute him for giving us a homeland for our proud people.


oh and by the way and for your kind information - britishers "common-wealthers" or whatever it is maintained their "footprint" in newly independent india as well


during the 1965 war, our pilots shot down indian aircrafts that were being piloted by anglo-brits.....curiously, both Air Forces retained british advisers and attaches during that period.

 

[FaujHistorian]

You do realize that your country and leadership was formed by a party that was subservient to british and never ever in the history protested against them. As far as lord mountbatten being viceroy of india, may be you ned to learn your own history,

now here is your Epic Fail :
From 1947 to 1956, Pakistan was a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations, under two monarchs. In 1947, King George VI relinquished the title of Emperor of India and became King of Pakistan. He retained that title until his death on 6 February 1952, after which Queen Elizabeth II became Queen of Pakistan.

ML subservient to British, and Gandhi Ji as an honorary soldier/recruiter for the British army.

It is all in the family yaar.

What happened before 1947 was one thing.

Keeping Gora viceroy oops gov general after Aug 15 is totally, completely, wholly different matter.

One era belong to British raaj, and one was supposed to be independent. But alas for the brown nosers or Indian leadership it didn't happen.


Commonwealth is ceremonial. There are many members of commonwealth even now. So what.

No one I mean no one keeps the old master even after so called freedom.

I can go on. But I'll let it go. Afterall Y'all are old cousins from across the border. Nuf with the kheencha taani the hostility the back biting.

peace to you brother. peace to you.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Two Nation Theory perfectly allows a secular nation, it does not accommodate, per se, an Islamic nation.

The Two Nation Theory says, in essence, that once an individual has been converted, he belongs to a different civilization which is in conflict with the civilization he belonged to yesterday.

Jinnah himself was the grandson of a Gujarati Hindu.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Jinnah himself was the grandson of a Gujarati Hindu.

his parents were Muslims....Ismailis, later became 12'er Shiias if my memory serves me correct

does it all really matter though? How does it figure into this conversation?

 

[Rig Vedic]

Without Islamic there is no pakistan.Then it is just another part of India.

That WAS Jinnah's original plan. It was sabotaged by the Congress.

Not likely that Pakistanis will agree that Jinnah wanted to create "just another part of India".

does it all really matter though? How does it figure into this conversation?

It helps to clarify what the two nation theory is, before we can discuss its impact on whether Pakistan can be secularized.

 

[Rig Vedic]

3. What existed before 1947 was as artifical ( if not more ) then what came after 1947. Those borders of the British Raj ( note I avoid the term Indian ) were defined by a external imperial power, the British. My forefathers and dare I say others from South Asia did not get a choice to be part of this Raj. The only reason for existance of the Raj was British greed.

That is the point of view of those who have no conception of an Indic civilization. Wasn't it Churchill who said something about India being like the equator.

In Pakistan you have indeed managed to get rid of many of your ancestral Indic cultural practices, but your languages Punjabi and Sindhi as as much Sanskrit-based as Assamese or Oriya or Nepali.