Jinnah VS A.Kalam Azad
- Thread starter Kompromat
- Start date
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Well the credit of uniting India was in the hands of British, so what does Mullah have to say about it.. Having kids before the mother?
Did that great Maulana predicted the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, the demolition of the Babri mosque by the Hindu fanatics and the murder of thousands of Kahmiris by the Indian army in shinning India? He must have knows it as he was not a alcohol consuming lowly second generation Hindu convert, the pure Afghan and Arab blood was running in his golden veins.
notsuperstitious
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 10,473
- Reaction score
- -15
Under the british there were 600 princely states. The modern concept of nationalism is a new one - to india, pakistan and to saudi arabia where you live. You can say we all are children of the british
OTOH Hindus and Muslims lived together for thousand years, thus proving the two nation theory concept is a modern concept too. A concept that is also a british gift.
BTW have you read the declassified secret correspondence between Azad and that staunch imperialist Churchill, secret because it was addressed to Churchill's secretary? That Churchill and Azad talked about not meeting publically ''in order to maintain the facade''? That not surprisingly Azad never spent a day in British jail? Oh wait, that was not Azad!
Truly british children sir, not without a mother, be proud.
desiman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 3,957
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistanis love their Macho hero's who accuse others without any proof or logic just to win public support, kinda explains their love for people like Zaid Hamid and group.
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Logically speaking Jinnah and Azad were both qualified personas in their own rights and perhaps there is no justice in comparing them against each other. Azad is probably the only Muslim figure which held the brass to the might of Jinnah.
As he made many prediction about Jinnah creation of Pakistan which later turned out to be true..At the school, we studied in detail about Jinnah as well as Moulana Azad with equal respect and that too from Pakistani books.
I will make the honorable mention of few in a summarized fashion.
The bitter memory of partition will always be a hindrance in good relations between Pakistan and India unless a major castrotophic incident takes place which significantly alters the course of opinion in both countries about each other. As we have we have seen the Mumbai terrorist attack and NATO attack provided this opportunity.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later.The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims.
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
He also predicted the likes of Gujrat Masscares
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
And a good light on the role of mullahs playing good cop and bad cop
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Full article http://k4kashmir.com/?p=2450
As he made many prediction about Jinnah creation of Pakistan which later turned out to be true..At the school, we studied in detail about Jinnah as well as Moulana Azad with equal respect and that too from Pakistani books.
I will make the honorable mention of few in a summarized fashion.
The bitter memory of partition will always be a hindrance in good relations between Pakistan and India unless a major castrotophic incident takes place which significantly alters the course of opinion in both countries about each other. As we have we have seen the Mumbai terrorist attack and NATO attack provided this opportunity.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later.The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims.
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
He also predicted the likes of Gujrat Masscares
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
And a good light on the role of mullahs playing good cop and bad cop
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Full article http://k4kashmir.com/?p=2450
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Under the british there were 600 princely states. The modern concept of nationalism is a new one - to india, pakistan and to saudi arabia where you live. You can say we all are children of the british
OTOH Hindus and Muslims lived together for thousand years, thus proving the two nation theory concept is a modern concept too. A concept that is also a british gift.
BTW have you read the declassified secret correspondence between Azad and that staunch imperialist Churchill, secret because it was addressed to Churchill's secretary? That Churchill and Azad talked about not meeting publically ''in order to maintain the facade''? That not surprisingly Azad never spent a day in British jail? Oh thats not Azad!
Truly british children sir, not without a mother, be proud.
These Arabs are still mostly a bunch of disparate and warring tribes.
Nationalism still sits uneasily on them.
But for some reason, those sitting in the "fort of Sunnah" talk about India with so much apparent familiarity.
Well, we have contempt for that "acting familiar".
The concept of nation state is anyway haram for them. Or not?
Actually the Arabs in general have a deeper sense of identity as compared to some Pakistanis who are still confused. Most states even if their borders were demarcated post WWII had a historical identity, like Syria, Iraq or Egypt. Libya or Pakistan are examples of names which were never heard of before.
Consider that the Baath movement which was basically an Arab socialist movement founded by a Arab Christian, Sunni Muslim and a Shia Alawaite became one of the most powerful forces establishing itself in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Egypt - the largest Arab country. It was a powerful movement until the 70s and 80s until its own turn towards dictators and the backing of political Islamists by GCC states on one hand and the West and the US in particular together worked to discredit or bring down these regimes. And again. the Arab Spring has shown once again the patriotic leanings of the Arabs in Egypt and Tunisia for example. Even the GCC citizens have a strong sense of "Khaleeji" Arab identity now.
Consider this, Maulana Azad who had an Arab mother and a Bengali father and was born in Mecca. Who studies Quranic commentary and Islamic knowledge professionally and came from a linage of Islamic scholars. HE concluded that the very idea of Pakistan is UnIslamic because the name implies that the world is divided into pure and impure. A notion that is UnIslamic in itself.
On the other hand, Jinnah had no Islamic training or knowledge. If I want to know about history, I would go to a historian. If I want to know about health I would prefer a doctor. Similarly, Maulana Azad is much more credible to give viewpoint according to Islamic theology.
However, Jinnah never really claimed to to make his basis of Pakistan on Islamic theology to be fair. It was about politics. His vision did not see how the partition of Punjab would lead to millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs dying. Neither did the British or Congress leaders.
Someone mentioned the Gujarat riots as a reason to disparage Maulana Azad. Then the fact that millions died in the partition is enough to show that "partition would result in a peaceful settlement" according to Jinnah was proved a failure right then. He had possibly realized before his death that he was used as a pawn unwittingly perhaps to create a subservient state for its own interests. Not to mention the added five Balochistan insurgences and the 300,000 killed in East Pakistan. Gujarat riots and all riots in independent India would pale in comparison in these numbers.
Consider that the Baath movement which was basically an Arab socialist movement founded by a Arab Christian, Sunni Muslim and a Shia Alawaite became one of the most powerful forces establishing itself in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Egypt - the largest Arab country. It was a powerful movement until the 70s and 80s until its own turn towards dictators and the backing of political Islamists by GCC states on one hand and the West and the US in particular together worked to discredit or bring down these regimes. And again. the Arab Spring has shown once again the patriotic leanings of the Arabs in Egypt and Tunisia for example. Even the GCC citizens have a strong sense of "Khaleeji" Arab identity now.
Consider this, Maulana Azad who had an Arab mother and a Bengali father and was born in Mecca. Who studies Quranic commentary and Islamic knowledge professionally and came from a linage of Islamic scholars. HE concluded that the very idea of Pakistan is UnIslamic because the name implies that the world is divided into pure and impure. A notion that is UnIslamic in itself.
On the other hand, Jinnah had no Islamic training or knowledge. If I want to know about history, I would go to a historian. If I want to know about health I would prefer a doctor. Similarly, Maulana Azad is much more credible to give viewpoint according to Islamic theology.
However, Jinnah never really claimed to to make his basis of Pakistan on Islamic theology to be fair. It was about politics. His vision did not see how the partition of Punjab would lead to millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs dying. Neither did the British or Congress leaders.
Someone mentioned the Gujarat riots as a reason to disparage Maulana Azad. Then the fact that millions died in the partition is enough to show that "partition would result in a peaceful settlement" according to Jinnah was proved a failure right then. He had possibly realized before his death that he was used as a pawn unwittingly perhaps to create a subservient state for its own interests. Not to mention the added five Balochistan insurgences and the 300,000 killed in East Pakistan. Gujarat riots and all riots in independent India would pale in comparison in these numbers.
If the number of slain muslims is in fact being sought to present a barometer to the futility or wiseness of what Maulana was proposing then the partition effected (and so eloquently trumpeted by Jinnah in the telegram) alone killed more number of Muslims then any communal event in post 1947 India ever did. In fact if you tally up the number of Bengali Muslims slaughtered by the Muslim Pakistani army then even that number tallies up to be manifold than the number of slain Muslims in India (and I am not even bringing in the communal offset of Hindu deaths in these violences).
Communal violence existed in India even in days before partition. So there is no question of Maulana and all other leaders of India to not have suffered from these.
The actual question that you must be asking is whether Jinnah who in his pompousness claimed to bring an elixir to the table with his trumpeted solution was able to achieve what he claimed or not. Revisit my first part of this post and the answer is a clear NO.
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Trolling alerts..Libya was part of the Berber Lands conquered by Romans. Libyan arabs fought the colonial Italians.
This Baath party is the precise reason why Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya are all failed states while Egypt was put back in control by Hosni Mubarak.
Rafi
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 11,752
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
The Quaid is a great leader, responsible for changing the world, Azad is an "indian" and lets leave it at that.
The land comprising Pakistan - formed some of the earliest human civilizations - something all Pakistanis can be proud of.
The land comprising Pakistan - formed some of the earliest human civilizations - something all Pakistanis can be proud of.
notsuperstitious
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 10,473
- Reaction score
- -15
Well said. I'm frankly not into religion much, and as such can not comment on Maulana Azad's religious credentials, but after reading his shockingly accurate predictions about the future, I have to say the guy was a sheer genius. His politeness, his rejection of hatred, his monumental achievements before and after partition and yet the humility - all point towards a truly great man, a man who did not have to use and sacrifice millions in search of his greatness.
We are fortunate to have such leaders, whose achivements we can recount, and not just have to rely on sloganeering - a tool of mind control.
Rafi
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 11,752
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
The Quaid is a great leader, responsible for changing the world, Azad is an "indian" and lets leave it at that.
The land comprising Pakistan - formed some of the earliest human civilizations - something all Pakistanis can be proud of.
The Quaid was truly a great man. May he RIP.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
A man who created a nationfrom nothing
..... followed by a string of men who created nothing from a nation.
Similar threads
