Jinnah VS A.Kalam Azad

[ice_man]

Bangladesh was too far gone by 1971. 24 years of poison is a long time. Had it happened earlier, maybe India would have taken it back into her fold. As things stand now, we would like to keep them confined to their borders. Strategically, it makes no difference. Something Pakistan has for long looked at Afghanistan as.



Well, I don't know about hypocrisy, but what should one call it when a Muslim laments about someone being forced out of their own land and asked to convert by force? The Jews are re-taking what was always theirs. They want a Jewish state. They do not have an issue with the natives being there as long as the re-vert. Is that so alien a concept for you?

was it 24 years of poision against india? IF so then East Paksitan would have not tried for independence would they because clearly then there enemy would have been India & not their western wing? so clearly they were not poisoned by us & hence the mualana's theory is a flop. they preferred to go their own way & not even consider rejoining "all muslims of india united" theory that 7 times president of congress (mualana) had supported.


now turning to the jews of israel who said it was their land? & this whole thing of if palsetanians convert they can stay logic do you apply to india? because clearly you can't have 2 views to a similar situation? jew under salahudin were protected & allowed to practise their religion.

even in the 40s when they came to the palestanian lands the palestanians treated them well only for them to turn around hit the actual settlers of the land.

 

[angeldust]

was it 24 years of poision against india? IF so then East Paksitan would have not tried for independence would they because clearly then there enemy would have been India & not their western wing? so clearly they were not poisoned by us & hence the mualana's theory is a flop. they preferred to go their own way & not even consider rejoining "all muslims of india united" theory that 7 times president of congress (mualana) had supported.

The poison is of isolationism and intolerance. Once that is coursing in your viens, you will find a reason to fight. First muslim on muslim, and when that is done, muslim on hindu. That is why India chose to cauterize that wound and prevent the poison from percolating within. Azad predicted it correctly. Uncannily so. What was a flop was Jinnah's confused two nation theory, which started crumblin from the day it was born, and died the day India broke Pakistan into two.

now turning to the jews of israel who said it was their land? & this whole thing of if palsetanians convert they can stay logic do you apply to india? because clearly you can't have 2 views to a similar situation? jew under salahudin were protected & allowed to practise their religion.

even in the 40s when they came to the palestanian lands the palestanians treated them well only for them to turn around hit the actual settlers of the land.

Would you like to start another discussion with regard to Israel. I am getting confused debating two unrelated chains of thought here.

Simply put, Israel, the Holy Land, was home to the Jews and Judaism long before Islam or Saladin. The Jews came home to reclaim their Holy Land. From what I have read, Islam is a continuation of Christianity and before it of Judaism. They are all linked as what is commonly called Abrahamic faiths. People of the book. Your holy book says much the same, and allows you special rights when it comes to marriage and relationships within these three interlinekd faiths. Why then should the Palestines, converts to Islam, have a problem with re-verting back to their parent faith?

 

[rubyjackass]

Yes.. Indians should be proud of him, bcoz he never stood up for Muslim rights, to show his loyalty to Congress..he was Shah se ziada shah ka wafadaar... Until, I hadnt read his book "India wins freedom" i had no feelings for him.. I thought he only politically disagreed with Muslim League, but I have developed special hatred for him, after reading his book...He accused Quaid-e-Azam of being an opportunist(which even Quaid's worst critics never accused him..of) , also he said tht Gandhi had given unnecessary importance to Jinnah, which he wasnt worthy of.... He always spoke about Quaid-e-Azam in a very insulting manner...He never stood up for Muslims rights

Whatever Jinnah gained in the negotiations with the British or with the Congress, it is by being stubborn and immovable. These gains include Pakistan. People like Gandhi who are naive and accommodating and thought Indians should not fight among themselves got basically ziclh while losing a lot. Every time Quaid played this game, he returned victor to show his League subjects the spoils until Patel, Rajaji and others finally managed to convince Gandhi and spoiled the party for him(with partition of Punjab and Bengal as a condition for partition). So yes, I agree with what Azad said.


And you are saying Azad spoke about Quaid-e-Azam in a very insulting manner?! They way your Quaid spoke about Azad is there before you in the telegram of OP. Quaid-e-Azam used to do the same to Azad even in the public(If he could afford such an indecent reply in a telegram, we can only imagine what were the words used in League sessions for Azad). Whether Azad stood up for muslim rights is your opinion. The way we see it, he stood for all Indians.



Look at the telegram conversation. It speaks for itself. Azad asked a decent question on Quaid's stance. What he gets back is a reply with personal insults and derogatory remarks. And you people call Quaid 'upright' for the reply?! No wonder Quaid is blemish-less for you.

 

[ice_man]

The poison is of isolationism and intolerance. Once that is coursing in your viens, you will find a reason to fight. First muslim on muslim, and when that is done, muslim on hindu. That is why India chose to cauterize that wound and prevent the poison from percolating within. Azad predicted it correctly. Uncannily so. What was a flop was Jinnah's confused two nation theory, which started crumblin from the day it was born, and died the day India broke Pakistan into two.



Would you like to start another discussion with regard to Israel. I am getting confused debating two unrelated chains of thought here.

Simply put, Israel, the Holy Land, was home to the Jews and Judaism long before Islam or Saladin. The Jews came home to reclaim their Holy Land. From what I have read, Islam is a continuation of Christianity and before it of Judaism. They are all linked as what is commonly called Abrahamic faiths. People of the book. Your holy book says much the same, and allows you special rights when it comes to marriage and relationships within these three interlinekd faiths. Why then should the Palestines, converts to Islam, have a problem with re-verting back to their parent faith?

ok you keep repating your rant don't you. IF your MUALANA's ideology of a united india where muslims & hindus had actually been correct then the bangladeshis would have realized & joined india not said well thank you but we prefer to REMAIN a FREE NATION! clearly that killed the ideology of MUALANA that muslims should all submit to hindu rule & stay indian! after all the "poision" that you speak of was from Pakistan right & not towards india was it?

there was no poison in any veins but in the heart of india & its people because they couldn't bare to have lost there AKHAND BHARAT dream & see MUSLIMS stand up for themselves & rule themselves!


the bold part shows your intelligence level & i am mistaken to have even tried to debate with such a fool who clearly has no idea about history or faith.

but i leave you with this so if the land belonged to hindus before then according to your theory about palestanians should convert to judaism because this land once belonged to jews(which clearly it never did) the muslims in india should convert to hinduism?? because clearly the land was hindu once right? WHAT a DUMB logic you have their mate!

 

[angeldust]

but i leave you with this so if the land belonged to hindus before then according to your theory about palestanians should convert to judaism because this land once belonged to jews(which clearly it never did) the muslims in india should convert to hinduism?? because clearly the land was hindu once right? WHAT a DUMB logic you have their mate!

India is a secular state. For all faiths. Israel is a Jewish state. They are well within their rights to decide which faith they allow on their land or not. So does India. We made our decision. They made theirs. You made yours. Bangladesh's was made for them by the victors who handed them their land. There was not much in the way of choice involved when you have an army encamped on your soil.

On the issue of Azad and his predictions, or Jinnah and his TNT, history is witness to who was right and who got it all wrong. Ask anyone outside the subcontinent if you want an unbiased opinion, since most of us are too polarized in our views.

 

[ice_man]

Whatever Jinnah gained in the negotiations with the British or with the Congress, it is by being stubborn and immovable. These gains include Pakistan. People like Gandhi who are naive and accommodating and thought Indians should not fight among themselves got basically ziclh while losing a lot. Every time Quaid played this game, he returned victor to show his League subjects the spoils until Patel, Rajaji and others finally managed to convince Gandhi and spoiled the party for him(with partition of Punjab and Bengal as a condition for partition). So yes, I agree with what Azad said.


And you are saying Azad spoke about Quaid-e-Azam in a very insulting manner?! They way your Quaid spoke about Azad is there before you in the telegram of OP. Quaid-e-Azam used to do the same to Azad even in the public(If he could afford such an indecent reply in a telegram, we can only imagine what were the words used in League sessions for Azad). Whether Azad stood up for muslim rights is your opinion. The way we see it, he stood for all Indians.



Look at the telegram conversation. It speaks for itself. Azad asked a decent question on Quaid's stance. What he gets back is a reply with personal insults and derogatory remarks. And you people call Quaid 'upright' for the reply?! No wonder Quaid is blemish-less for you.

firstly what Quaid said is not derogatry it is how a CARING person speaks to a friend to try and discourage him from something that will eventually harm him! what Quaid was telling in plain words to MAULANA was DON'T play into the hands of the congressmen they will fool you & your followers. use you as a pawn! i sir don't see anything wrong in that FACT.


so atleast you admit that PATIL and raja "spoilt" the plan? that is exactly why the massacre happened because punjab & bangladesh were split up & hence the blame of the mssacre lands right on the doorstep of patil! & this was followed up by NEHRU regarding the Junagadh & Kashmir disputes!

India is a secular state. For all faiths. Israel is a Jewish state. They are well within their rights to decide which faith they allow on their land or not. So does India. We made our decision. They made theirs. You made yours. Bangladesh's was made for them by the victors who handed them their land. There was not much in the way of choice involved when you have an army encamped on your soil.

On the issue of Azad and his predictions, or Jinnah and his TNT, history is witness to who was right and who got it all wrong. Ask anyone outside the subcontinent if you want an unbiased opinion, since most of us are too polarized in our views.

so basically now you have changed your whole point of view and said that BENGALIS of BANGLADESH had no choice but to bend over & take whatever india wished to assert on them?

as for Mualana well he was used as a pawn by men like PATIL & NEHRU. & why should i look outside the subcontinent? this is the issue Indian leadership even then kept running to the british raj & playing into their hands and hence got a privelaged division of punjab & bengal! while Paksitani leadership of Jinnah stuck & refused to APPEASE the british hence was stuck with a hurried divison & left over bits.

 

[angeldust]

so basically now you have changed your whole point of view and said that BENGALIS of BANGLADESH had no choice but to bend over & take whatever india wished to assert on them?

Glad you finally got it. Nothing I've said has changed. Just that you've finally got it.

as for Mualana well he was used as a pawn by men like PATIL & NEHRU. & why should i look outside the subcontinent? this is the issue Indian leadership even then kept running to the british raj & playing into their hands and hence got a privelaged division of punjab & bengal! while Paksitani leadership of Jinnah stuck & refused to APPEASE the british hence was stuck with a hurried divison & left over bits.

You got way more than you should have. Please be happy and work on what you have, instead of coveting what you never did. My point with regard to an unbiased audience was not so much as a referee but as an eyeopener for you. It would be naive to imagine that only you guys have it right, and the rest of the world have been somehow brainwashed by us.

 

[rubyjackass]

firstly what Quaid said is not derogatry it is how a CARING person speaks to a friend to try and discourage him from something that will eventually harm him! what Quaid was telling in plain words to MAULANA was DON'T play into the hands of the congressmen they will fool you & your followers. use you as a pawn! i sir don't see anything wrong in that FACT.


so atleast you admit that PATIL and raja "spoilt" the plan? that is exactly why the massacre happened because punjab & bangladesh were split up & hence the blame of the mssacre lands right on the doorstep of patil! & this was followed up by NEHRU regarding the Junagadh & Kashmir disputes!

I can only laugh at your logic.

Especially you suggestion that the telegram is friendly. Azad was the president of INC at the time. Jinnah was literally maa-bhen-ing the organization and its President with whom he is supposed to negotiate. And look at his sly response. He, on the one hand, does not give a response to a formal wire and on the other hand attacks the guys willing to negotiate. By the way this was in 1941 before Quaid even had considerable support. And you call that message 'caring'!! How does it go if during Indo-Pakistan talks, our PM asks your President to immigrate to India and offers him citizenship?

I respect Quaid's steadfastness in the face of all odds. Just like I would admire a poker player who bluffs and wins. The end result is he played the game well. But it was not all a game in Jinnah's case. Partition was dirty business.

I give credit to your second point. It is subtler. But it is easy to drill holes into its logic. So if Jinnah asked for one more state because it has 51% muslims, Patel and co should give it up quietly?! You are talking like what Jinnah was expecting of Gandhi. Even Gandhi saw through it in the end. The massacre happened because there was 'partition' period. And Jinnah is the foremost of the people who gets the blame or credit depending on how you see it(I will admit that others are also responsible).

 

[ice_man]

I can only laugh at your logic.

Especially you suggestion that the telegram is friendly. Azad was the president of INC at the time. Jinnah was literally maa-bhen-ing the organization and its President with whom he is supposed to negotiate. And look at his sly response. He, on the one hand, does not give a response to a formal wire and on the other hand attacks the guys willing to negotiate. By the way this was in 1941 before Quaid even had considerable support. And you call that message 'caring'!! How does it go if during Indo-Pakistan talks, our PM asks your President to immigrate to India and offers him citizenship?

I respect Quaid's steadfastness in the face of all odds. Just like I would admire a poker player who bluffs and wins. The end result is he played the game well. But it was not all a game in Jinnah's case. Partition was dirty business.

I give credit to your second point. It is subtler. But it is easy to drill holes into its logic. So if Jinnah asked for one more state because it has 51% muslims, Patel and co should give it up quietly?! You are talking like what Jinnah was expecting of Gandhi. Even Gandhi saw through it in the end. The massacre happened because there was 'partition' period. And Jinnah is the foremost of the people who gets the blame or credit depending on how you see it(I will admit that others are also responsible).

you are just beating around the bush now aren't you? Partition was a VISIONARY decision by Jinnah and ofcourse like all visionaries he got alot of opposition from men who were being used as pawns! such as MUALANA! jinnah saw it in 1941 that mualana was made a "SHOW BOY" for a reason and that was to keep the muslims at bay!

secondly IF patil & raja hadn't asked for a DIVISION of PUNJAB the massacre would have been avoided! clearly partition could have happened much more peacefully if the demand of breaking up to major provinces was avoided.

as for BLUFF what did Jinnah bluff about? he initally supported congress in the 1920s only to see right through the pawns & puppets & motives of people like nehru & patil.

 

[rubyjackass]

Your biased opinions. You call one dream visionary and refuse to see the other side.

You are applying double standards here. Patel can not ask for division of Punjab and Bengal but Jinnah can ask for division of India?! Because it was his 'visionary decision'?! My visionary decision is to make a Hindu state out of India. Is that possible? Obviously the non-Hindus are going to ask for their pound of flesh. Their terms should also count and they will ask for division of India. Why should others respect my 'visionary decisions'? In any negotiation, to get something, you have to lose something.

I did not say Jinnah bluffed. The tactic parallel to poker bluff which Jinnah used was saying no to anything that did not meet his full demands claiming a huge support which he did not have. In the end he had to take what he got because the British were threatening to leave anytime.

 

[ice_man]

Your biased opinions. You call one dream visionary and refuse to see the other side.

You are applying double standards here. Patel can not ask for division of Punjab and Bengal but Jinnah can ask for division of India?! Because it was his 'visionary decision'?! My visionary decision is to make a Hindu state out of India. Is that possible? Obviously the non-Hindus are going to ask for their pound of flesh. Their terms should also count and they will ask for division of India. Why should others respect my 'visionary decisions'? In any negotiation, to get something, you have to lose something.

I did not say Jinnah bluffed. The tactic parallel to poker bluff which Jinnah used was saying no to anything that did not meet his full demands claiming a huge support which he did not have. In the end he had to take what he got because the British were threatening to leave anytime.

You are correct that the indian hindus didn't feel he was visionary & hence put road blocks in his way & are responsible for the massacre that followed.

Jinnah wanted an easy and relaxed partition however, with the threat of British walking out anytime & congressman annxeaing the whole of the subcontinent Jinnah gave in and took whatever land he was left. sadly if the british hadn't rushed & nehru & patil weren't in bed with the british the partition could have been easy and no ill feelings would have existed on either side.

 

[angeldust]

sadly if the british hadn't rushed & nehru & patil weren't in bed with the british the partition could have been easy and no ill feelings would have existed on either side.

There would always have been hatred and bloodshed. Only the naive believe that a hunky dory separation could have been somehow possible.

 

[Darth Vader]

can some 1 close this thread how can u match 2 guys 1 was working for independent human beings and other was working fo r making them salves

 

[AbhijitSingh]

----self deleted-----

 

[ice_man]

Why do you think Jinnah worked to make human beings slaves??

guys please both of you don't troll! let this be a health discussion not a flame trolling nonsense!