Jinnah's secularism was about pluralism: YLH

[Rollno21]

So being a d!ck is not a problem for you ? no wonder you guys support d!cks like Modi lol sorry but we have standards for our leaders.

Now don't be one , please go through my previous posts in the thread and understand what we were discussing, then come and respond to my post.

 

[El Sidd]

“Jinnah’s idea of secularism was in pluralism. He even had his Aug 10, 1947 oath altered by omitting the word ‘swear’ and ‘so help me God’. There was no mention of God in the oath to keep religion and state separate. He felt that any person with merit should lead Pakistan,” he pointed out.

"I, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, do solemnly affirm true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Pakistan as by law established and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George VI, in the office of Governor General of Pakistan."

Pakistan formulated the first constitution in 1956. Between 1947 and 56, Pakistan was a dominion of the British crown. These Syeds and feudal lords insist on forgetting their services to the Crown.

“Jinnah was not completely decided on Partition. The division of the subcontinent was not etched in stone, and this narrative needs to come out in Pakistan Studies,” he said

Jinnahs populist opinion on united India before his resignation on the matter are well documented.

Partition was etched in ink via the 3rd June plan by not just Jinnah alone but through mutual consensus of plural Indian empire locally last known as the Mughal empire.

 

[El Sidd]

No one outside of Pakistan sees Jinnah as a great leader, even a lot of people in Pakistan aren't fond of Jinnah but don't say it out loud as they would get killed.

On the Indian irony. The man who shot Gandhi dead gave his reasons that he shot Gandhi for being fond of Jinnah.

If Jinnah was truly "secular", Hindus and Sikhs wouldn't have been systematically driven out of the country at 1947.

Who do you think he was the police commissioner or some mind controlling super human?

The Muslim League themselves were a communal party of demagogues who didn't contribute a single thing to the freedom struggle

Peaceful democratic process was preferred by the league as more nobler and worthily than violent freedom struggle. As downtrodden as Muslims were in the British empire going through the usual motion what nations subject to the last ruling nation.

they even made alliances with Hindu extremist parties.

They made alliances with Hindus. The adjective of extremist is not for Muslim league to decide for the Hindu community.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Excellent speech by my dear friend Yasser Latif Hamdani and a nice article by Dawn as well. The only jarring note was YLH saying "Jinnah was greater than Gandhi". This is like saying that "Roger Federer was greater than Rohan Bopanna". Obvious, avoidable and completely unnecessary IMHO.

A classic post, redolent of all the virtues that you represent. That Roger Federer versus Rohan Bopanna gibe certainly encapsulates that unhappy breed of Indian that will defile everything positive about the leadership of the freedom struggle in an attempt to demonstrate that since no political party can be seen to be responsible for the emergence of an independent India, no political party with an agenda hostile to the composition of the present Indian state needs to feel apologetic about its visible corrosive effect on that state, or regard with any seriousness the flood of criticism of its intents and purposes.

But, of course, it gets better. What is self-hatred unless accompanied by the deepest and most abject self-humiliation?

KARACHI: “Sadly and tragically, we are nowhere near Jinnah’s idea of a modern nation state,” said Yasser Latif Hamdani, who is a well-known human rights lawyer, writer and author of several books, including Jinnah: A Life.

He was giving a talk on ‘Jinnah and the Idea of a Modern Nation State’ at the Quaid-i-Azam House Museum here on Friday.

Could it be, possibly, that the core idea was flawed?

“Jinnah’s idea of secularism was in pluralism. He even had his Aug 10, 1947 oath altered by omitting the word ‘swear’ and ‘so help me God’. There was no mention of God in the oath to keep religion and state separate. He felt that any person with merit should lead Pakistan,” he pointed out.

“We all know of his speech where he said ‘You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan.’ But the most important words in that speech are: ‘Even now there are some states in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class … we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.’

“He would have never stood for state religion. So what was the idea of Pakistan? Jinnah’s idea was not dependant on Partition. There could still be Pakistan in United India. The idea that is dividing India and Islam may sound good here, but it is a bad story to tell internationally. India sells Gandhi and his ideals of secularism and pluralism abroad. Jinnah was greater than Gandhi, but he has a negative image,” said Mr Hamdani.

Even those of us who acknowledge and salute the personal integrity of this great man are not entirely, wholly, utterly persuaded that he was right in all his formulations.

How could he not stand for a state religion, when his support system was an exclusionary and parochial movement based entirely on an agenda for one community?

How can anyone logically believe that wearing puce today is consistent with banning the shade altogether tomorrow?

“Jinnah was not completely decided on Partition. The division of the subcontinent was not etched in stone, and this narrative needs to come out in Pakistan Studies,” he said.

This is speculative history, of the sort that we see in our dreams.

Every single action or word of the Pakistan movement was towards a Pakistan, and we are told repeatedly that any intermediate stops were merely way-stops, and not the final destination.

These formulations are the flight into fantasy of liberals who cannot bear to admit that their original concept of nationhood was flawed, and led inevitably to today's conditions.

It is for each observer to decide with candour and honesty at least to himself or to herself what these conditions are. If they are good, if the condition of the country is robust, if prospects for the future are excellent, wonderful.

It is for Indians to decide what shape India is in today, it is for Pakistanis to decide what shape Pakistan is in today.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Earlier, senior vice chairman of the Board of Management (BoM) of the Quaid-i-Azam House Museum, and Jinnah’s grandnephew Liaquat Merchant said: “In order to understand the reasons of the creation of Pakistan and that Pakistan will never die, you have to cross that bridge that is ‘Jinnah’. Only then will you understand Pakistan, the Pakistan Movement and the creation of Pakistan.”

Mr Merchant also said that there was a large collection of books on Jinnah, which was still not enough. “Any book on Jinnah is a welcome addition,” he said, while also lauding the efforts of the former minister of finance of India, Jaswant Singh, for writing his book Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.

He said there was also a need for book in quest of Jinnah. “There should be a book about him as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian and statesman, as a Congress leader, a book on Jinnah’s role in the Pakistan Movement, him as the governor general of Pakistan, him as the protector of minorities, as a champion of human rights and Jinnah on education as he willed most of his money to educational institutions both in India and Pakistan,” he said.

BoM secretary general Sadeed A. Malik and member Ameena Saiyid also spoke on the occasion.

Excellent ideas. It is to be hoped that no bigoted resistance to this emerges from today's deformed principles of public behaviour in India. That, however, is OP's chosen department.

This is like saying that "Roger Federer was greater than Rohan Bopanna". Obvious, avoidable and completely unnecessary IMHO.

I guess you wanted to say "this is like saying rohan was greater than roger"

It is in the highest degree doubtful that there was any such intention.

Learn to recognise the self-hating Indian. Anything and everything pertaining to India's rivals - China, Pakistan, even Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, why leave out the Maldives? - is transcendent; anything Indian that is not linked to the present brain-damaged administration is utterly despicable. The syndrome extends further, and ultimately points to the utterly despicable nature of Indians.

Once such tortured souls are put in the pillory and pelted with rotten vegetables, they are relieved of their pain and despair. To some extent; they are perfectionists who always leave room for improvement.

 

[Arsalan345]

Quaid states the concept of a free society several times. Blaming Quaid for our own failure shows our mentality. We failed because we never respected other parties. Jinnah and Gandhi were two different people. One wanted to make a country, the other didn't. Quaid was more successful because he implemented the idea of the creation of Pakistan. He died early otherwise we didn't see things like the change of capital from Karachi to Islamabad, the treatment of Christians in Pakistan, etc. The country was hijacked after Quaid's death. Christians now cleaning toilets in our country which shows a collective failure on our side. Merit is a joke. The country is hijacked after Quaid's death.

Gandhi was a kind of philosopher that's why everybody liked him. Quaid made this country. Unfortunately, we have destroyed our own country and that's a shame because Quaid never wanted uneducated to lead this country.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Rollno21

Gandhi is hated and despised by many- especially in India and also among black people throughout the world for his vile, racist views. Jinnah sahib is still the country's idol, although it has not lived upto his ideals.

Regards

@Rollno21

Quod erat demonstradum.

These are not political statements. Look beyond that facade of political analysis.

In other words, we have created what WE wanted to create, not what Jinnah wanted. Makes sense to me, nothing sad or tragic about it. 100% intentional.

That, too, is fair, but incomplete. You were left with an unfinished work in progress; there was little that could be done to alter its basic character, or to attempt a vast correction.

No one outside of Pakistan sees Jinnah as a great leader, even a lot of people in Pakistan aren't fond of Jinnah but don't say it out loud as they would get killed. If Jinnah was truly "secular", Hindus and Sikhs wouldn't have been systematically driven out of the country at 1947. Jinnah only invoked secularism when it was convenient for him, Pakistan wasn't built on values of tolerance and inclusion, that was evident when nationwide anti Ahmadiyya and Hindu pogroms broke out in the 50s shortly after Pakistan was made. The Muslim League themselves were a communal party of demagogues who didn't contribute a single thing to the freedom struggle, they even made alliances with Hindu extremist parties.

It is futile to count the rocks that will be thrown at you by hyper-patriots who will tolerate no nonsense about such shibboleths. Honesty and integrity is at a discount in south Asia; the First Amendment is not an amendment in any south Asian constitution.

On a personal note, good for you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No one outside of Pakistan sees Jinnah as a great leader, even a lot of people in Pakistan aren't fond of Jinnah but don't say it out loud as they would get killed. If Jinnah was truly "secular", Hindus and Sikhs wouldn't have been systematically driven out of the country at 1947. Jinnah only invoked secularism when it was convenient for him, Pakistan wasn't built on values of tolerance and inclusion, that was evident when nationwide anti Ahmadiyya and Hindu pogroms broke out in the 50s shortly after Pakistan was made. The Muslim League themselves were a communal party of demagogues who didn't contribute a single thing to the freedom struggle, they even made alliances with Hindu extremist parties.

It is futile to count the rocks that will be thrown at you by hyper-patriots who will tolerate no nonsense about such shibboleths. Honesty and integrity is at a discount in south Asia; the First Amendment is not an amendment in any south Asian constitution.

On a personal note, good for you.

As a matter of fact, far larger percentage of Pakistanis love Jinnah than Indians love Gandhi. Most Indian Hindus hate Gandhi, and many now support the ideology of those who killed him.

Yes, quite, eliminating the impact of a Hindu theocratic movement that systematically took several decades to reverse the impact of Gandhi's mass mobilisation, and inculcation of certain values and mores into the mobilised masses makes the final effect today quite dramatic.

I do not comment on what outlook generates this perverted analysis.

 

[Menace2Society]

Highly delusional speech. If Jinnah wanted secularism then there's no better place for south Asian Muslims as the unified secular India. However if Hindus couldn't be trusted than I'm afraid you're either engaging in anti hindu bigotry or secularism is flawed to point that it can't contend with the tyranny of majority.

Lastly if Jinnah truly wanted secularism than that's quite irrelevant since he was a singular individual who was never at any point greater than the will of majority of Pakistanis who want Islam not just now but from the inception of the country.

India dominates its minorities, it can never achieve true secularism and Jinnah knew it.

He wanted a safe haven for the minorities of the sub continent and a country with Islam as the dominant faith was the quickest route because nothing else would get the people out of bed to carve out a territory.

He wanted a moderate Islam which was not overbearing with a secular state which provided equal freedoms to all the minorities of the subcontinent.

Sadly the bigots, the zealots and the corrupts took control as soon as he died and used Islam to consolidate their power. If he had lived just 10 years more we would have the Pakistan he wanted.

 

[ThunderCat]

Pakistan is secular enough for my liking legally speaking but people need to take a chill pill and government needs to de radicalize people,

we need to focus on other much more important things, I think from a legal POV except for some changes (like blasphemy BS) here and there we're fine, becoming a secular Turkish type republic doesn't suit us and only stupid people argue for it- and that's coming from a person who is agnostic not even an Islamist or a proper Muslim

He explains why https://www.scribd.com/document/512...jkf8fguiGWCsoOkIIy-RSd1NK2NHkYMp_Jt9H-BuqJKeo

Because by definition Turkey was never secular to begin with, quite the opposite. And what he claims is simultaneously endorsed by Turkish scholars. No offense to Turkish people, but even their civic scholars & historians acknowledge this fact.

 

[ThunderCat]

 

[epebble]

To most Indians, Gandhi is a greater leader than Quaid e Azam. To most Pakistanis, it is reverse. As simple as that.

Gandhi was an Indian nationalist. Jinnah was a Muslim nationalist. It is not fair to pigeonhole him to Pakistan. His thoughts should receive universal acclaim.