Jinnah VS A.Kalam Azad

[Vinod2070]

Real history is something that your nation doesn't want you to learn, mughals ruled much of India in their prime.

According to history you get taught prithvi raj captured ghuri and ghuri begged for his life and prithvi raj released ghuri, your nation has to fake events to manipulate history.

Akbar was great because he had a Hindu wife and he was a lost sheep but aurangzeb wasn't because he was a pious Muslim.

No. He was a pathetic bigot. An extremist who destroyed many temples and forcibly converted many people.

He antagonized the Indians to an extent that the Mughal rule was doomed...

 

[hotaki]

No. He was a pathetic bigot. An extremist who destroyed many temples and forcibly converted many people.

He antagonized the Indians to an extent that the Mughal rule was doomed...

Great man aurangzeb the best of all mughals in my opinion, if he was so pathetic then how come a foreigner ruling you?.

Never answered why you distort history and says prithvi spared ghuris life?.

 

[Bang Galore]

Now that we have all had our fun I must point out that the very basic contention of the thread is held up on false pretences because it is extremely unlikely that these two telegrams are in any way related.

Azad's telegram is dated 12th July 1940. Jinnah's supposed reply is dated 19th February 1941. I don't believe Mr.Jinnah's 's staunch followers believe that he was so slow a reader that he took over 7 months to reply. Maulana Azad's telegram refers to Mr.Jinnah's statement of July(the very same month Azad wrote the letter) whereas we have to believe that Jinnah would reply to an urgent telegram some 7 months later. As I said, very unlikely!

 

[53fd]

The reason why Jinnah opted for a separate homeland was, because by all indications at the time, the Indian subcontinent was looking to become a non-secular nation, where the majority would dominate the minority groups.

Jinnah envisioned a secular, Muslim majority state for Pakistan, where everyone (regardless of religion, ethnicity, color) would be equal. What happened post 1947 was that Pakistan abandoned the secularism Jinnah had envisioned (along the lines of Ataturk in Turkey). The Deobandis in India, who had opposed the creation of Pakistan infiltrated, & started influencing the affairs of Pakistan. India meanwhile, became more "secular" with time. Pakistan is where it is today not because it fulfilled Jinnah's vision, but because they did the opposite of that.

 

[Porus]

This forum should change its name to idf as i feel there are more Indians here then pakistanis and admin is happy as he cares only for traffic and donations and not for the Pakistani community.

If it is changed to IDF then almost all Pakistanis will immediately leave and very few Indians will remain here. Is there any Pakistani discussion forum or even newspaper which is not regularly frequented by the people from our eastern neighbouring country? Look at this Vinod guy, he asked us to leave them alone but he himself will keep trolling here. He has apparently never heard an old adage that there are only two kind of people, those who have some self-respect and those who don't.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Now that we have all had our fun I must point out that the very basic contention of the thread is held up on false pretences because it is extremely unlikely that these two telegrams are in any way related.

Azad's telegram is dated 12th July 1940. Jinnah's supposed reply is dated 19th February 1941. I don't believe Mr.Jinnah's 's staunch followers believe that he was so slow a reader that he took over 7 months to reply. Maulana Azad's telegram refers to Mr.Jinnah's statement of July(the very same month Azad wrote the letter) whereas we have to believe that Jinnah would reply to an urgent telegram some 7 months later. As I said, very unlikely!

I had my doubts from the very beginning , from when i saw the term "Confidential" in the start.

 

[Bang Galore]

The reason why Jinnah opted for a separate homeland was, because by all indications at the time, the Indian subcontinent was looking to become a non-secular nation, where the majority would dominate the minority groups.

Jinnah envisioned a secular, Muslim majority state for Pakistan, where everyone (regardless of religion, ethnicity, color) would be equal. What happened post 1947 was that Pakistan abandoned the secularism Jinnah had envisioned (along the lines of Ataturk in Turkey). The Deobandis in India, who had opposed the creation of Pakistan infiltrated, & started influencing the affairs of Pakistan. India meanwhile, became more "secular" with time. Pakistan is where it is today not because it fulfilled Jinnah's vision, but because they did the opposite of that.

What you are saying is that India fulfilled Jinnah's vision while Pakistan became the state that he originally wanted to get away from?

 

[holysaturn]

This forum should change its name to idf as i feel there are more Indians here then pakistanis and admin is happy as he cares only for traffic and donations and not for the Pakistani community.

PDF is administered by pakistanis and is free to all nationalities so there is no question on changing the name................a check on the traffic will be against the spirit of this forum ........if you think traffic check is necessary then it must be mandatory for all including chinese bcoz w/o indians the forum will be sino-pak defence forum........

 

[53fd]

What you are saying is that India fulfilled Jinnah's vision while Pakistan became the state that he originally wanted to get away from?

I would not say India fulfilled Jinnah's vision either, as it quite evident by the huge communal problems in India (resulting in huge riots of the "religious flavor" from time to time).

Pakistan certainly did not fulfill Jinnah's vision for secularism, & while India did a much better job than Pakistan on that front, it did not fulfill what Jinnah envisioned either. What Turkey has been is what Jinnah envisioned for Pakistan, & neither India nor Pakistan are like that. India is a country where the sensitivities of the Hindu majority dominate the rest of the religious groups, especially the non-Dharmic ones (I can give a few examples on that too). I would call India an amalgamation of (the secular aspects of) Hinduism & secularism, or a pseudo Hindu-secular society.

 

[Great Sachin]

Jinnah and Nehru both were greedy for power. Jinnah dying to become PM of India ......or else division of India...and he can become King of divided part called Pakistan in the name of 2 nation theory....If he was made PM of India..he would have forgotten 2NT and welfare of muslim...Azad was more concerned of India

 

[mautkimaut]

The reason why Jinnah opted for a separate homeland was, because by all indications at the time, the Indian subcontinent was looking to become a non-secular nation, where the majority would dominate the minority groups.

Jinnah envisioned a secular, Muslim majority state for Pakistan, where everyone (regardless of religion, ethnicity, color) would be equal. What happened post 1947 was that Pakistan abandoned the secularism Jinnah had envisioned (along the lines of Ataturk in Turkey). The Deobandis in India, who had opposed the creation of Pakistan infiltrated, & started influencing the affairs of Pakistan. India meanwhile, became more "secular" with time. Pakistan is where it is today not because it fulfilled Jinnah's vision, but because they did the opposite of that.

exactly..
I believe, that the Muslims of that time were alarmed by the prospect of being dominated by Hindus.So they looked for a place where they could be at peace and free to pursue their religion.
Although I believe , this was a bit alarmist. but fear is a part of the human nature.

Sadly though the Pakistani dictators have taken Pakistan away from what Jinnah dreamt of ..

It has become a hollow shell of all the people's aspiration who wanted a land for religion of peace and Peace is what is not found in the country now...

 

[Bang Galore]

I had my doubts from the very beginning , from when i saw the term "Confidential" in the start.

The telegrams are genuine, not so sure of the dates.

 

[takeiteasy]

Abdol Kalam Azaad if He is right or wrong, Pakistan is a reality and Your people must be proud of Your country. There is no, "We were part of India" syndrome encouraged nor "We Desis" generalization(clubbing south asia) encouraged. after 3 or 4 generations, Pakistan will integrate more to their brothers in the middle east and must distance from India. in the next decades, Indian union will mature to be peaceful and a developed south Asia(India,Nepal,Bhutan,Bangladesh,Srilanka).

tbh, satymeva jayate. hence, the truth.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

I equally respect both Quaid and Abul Kalam Azad. Azad was a true patriot and huge supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity, every Indian should be proud of him.

Yes My dear, your post is clarifying it. I knew it already who could show those pathetic videos of AK Azad.

IMP INFO FOR PATRIOTIC PDF MEMBERS
I am watching A.K.Azad's negative speeches for Pakistan on Karachi local Cable TV Channels that usually shows Altaf Hussain's (FIQAR ANGAIZ) Speeches, MQM Campaigns & lovely songs.

DEATH TO TRAITORS.

 

[Vinod2070]

They are suppressed.. but then their numbers dont count.. and we are already listed as an Islamic country while you guys wave the banner of secularism like you invented it.

Why do you care what we call ourselves?

Partition and two nation theory meant a complete break. An irreversible separation.

You decided to move on, find a new life.

And in the best traditions of a Sha Rukh movie, we say: "Jee le apni jindagi".

Just leave us alone. We are not doing anything to impress you.

We admit we are bigoted.. but your hiding your double standards on the guise of "show boats" has to be pointed out.

You always assume that we are comparable. We are not!

We have chosen secularism because that is what the Hindu majority of the country wants. Not to impress you! You have nothing to do with that decision at all.

Wasnt there the issue of Low Muslim representation in the Military..
So if Muslims were really cared for.. Id suppose the political setup would work to bring their standards up.
An Azim Premji or A.R Rehman does not effect the ones having to wash clothes in slums.
There are showboats here.. why hide yours under the guise of "its really all ok here".

Much of the problems related to Muslim backwardness is no different from that of other communities.

The Muslims have made tremendous progress from the very low base at partition when most educated Muslims left for Pakistan.

Now they have better indicators than Pakistani Muslims and are improving. Some still fall victims to the extremist elements like Bukhari (OBL supporter) and have regressive social values (no woman to work fatwa by Deoband etc.).

As our politics is vote bank based, these pathetic extremist and regressive Muslim leaders are courted and keep the community backward.

But we absolutely reject your claim to represent them to us!

They are our people and nothing to do with you. You take care of Pakistanis of all religions and we take care of Indians of all religions.

If you really want to help Indian Muslims, there is one thing you can do.

Stop the "non state actors".