Pervez Hoodbhoy says Jinnah was wrong and 1947 partition was a tragedy

[Dalit]

we Indians are really greatful to Jinnah,you guys dont know or dont understand how much he has done for India by creating Pakistan.

Don't worry. We know the hurt you get from this Balkanization. We do thank Jinnah and God every single moment of the day we got our own land.

You just live enraged on your side. We will live jolly on ours.

 

[farhan_9909]

Partition was the best thing happened in Indian subcontinent and equally stupid is the idea of Akhand Bharat both politically and Culturally,if it wasn't for 1947 we would've revolted for a partition in future anyway.

Thanks Jinnah and congress.

Partition of Pakistan was not merely based on two nation theory but seperating the natural divide of Indus valley civilization People from the subcontinent.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Its quite obvious liberals like Pervez Hoodbhoy would not have supported the creation of Pakistan in 1947. While its true that religious scholars differed on creating Pakistan, but each of their views were based on what they thought would have been the most beneficial for the Muslims of the subcontinent , for example many pro-Pakistan ulema abandoned supporting Pakistan after 1947 and similarly many anti-Pakistan ulema who had opposed Quaid e Azam previously supported creation of Pakistan after 1947. These changes of opinions were each scholars personal assessment of whether Pakistan was more advantageous or more disadvantageous to Muslims.

However liberals by definition can never support or be loyal to the concept of Pakistan and therefore they can be expected to utter trash like Hoodbhoy. We also must remember that Hoodbhoy has been a staunch supporter of the secularisation of Pakistan, but even he has to admit Pakistan's religious basis and ideology.

Sabrang Alternative News Network




Pak was born in a state of confusion: Hoodbhoy - Times of India

HYDERABAD: Pakistan is a nation that was born in confusion, is still in confusion but will move out of it in the future - hoped eminent nuclear physicist and author Pervez Hoodbhoy who has, for long, been a champion of the "secular state" notion. "Though I know that it is not welcome in my country and people who deviate from the notion that it is an Islamic state, are looked upon disapprovingly, I strongly feel that's what we need to head towards," Hoodbhoy reiterated.

He was speaking at a session on 'Reimagining Pakistan', organised as part of the ongoing Hyderabad Literary Festival. The Pakistani scholar was joined by Venkat Dhulipala, a US-based professor, historian and writer, on the dais.

The conversation about a secular Pakistan, took both the authors back in history - to the time of partition and Jinnah's fight for a separate "Muslim" nation. While Hoodbhoy spoke of Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a "confused" man whose idea of separating a Hindu nation from a Muslim one fell flat when "east Pakistan broke away in 1971" to form Bangladesh, Dhulipala, quoting from popular theories, painted the founder of Pakistan as a "secular person". "It has been a broadly accepted axiomatic truth that Jinnah wanted it (Pakistan) to be a European style nation state based on secular democracy. And if only he had stuck around longer, he would have been able to nurture that dream. Pakistan would have then emerged as a mirror image of India," the author of 'Creating a New Medina' stated.

Hoodbhoy politely disagreed. Elaborating on his views of Jinnah, the author said how "he didn't have a clue" about what he said or wanted. "On the one hand he spoke of all citizens - irrespective of religion - being equals and on the other he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic State. Sadly, neither he nor anybody till date knows what an Islamic State is," the 66-year-old scholar said, pointing out to his co-panelist how his country, at one point, was indeed a mirror image of India.

"When I grew up in Karachi (he was born three years after partition) our neighbourhood comprised Parsis, Christians and Hindus. We all shared perfect goodwill - as was true of many other neighbourhoods. There were wine stores all over the city. It was actually just like Bombay (Mumbai)," Hoodbhoy reminisced, ruing how his country then "was very different from the country that it has become today".

Harping on the 1947 incident being an "unspeakable tragedy" that "separated people who at one time could live together in peace", the Pakistani writer sincerely prayed that Pakistan, one day, grows into a country where "every citizen has exactly the same right and privileges as of any other, irrespective of their religion, language, class or race".

Quote:

On the one hand he spoke of all citizens - irrespective of religion - being equals and on the other he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic State. Sadly, neither he nor anybody till date knows what an Islamic State is

Pakistan's creation was a mistake? Speak for yourself. This guy is obviously retarded or a highly paid traitor. Isn't he the same person who said that Pakistan should give up it's nuclear arsenal entirely because Pakistan can trust india and the west/zionists?????????????????

The only thing that will make people like him happy is if Pakistan gave up it's heritage, Islam, nuclear weapons, culture and then had a holocaust committed against it like the Iraqi brothers and sisters did by the americans from 2003-2012.

Pakistan is a dynamic country with a unique culture, a country whose people are exceptionally beautiful and handsome, a unique race of people, we are Muslims, we have a strong sense of self and our heritage. If certain people don't like it they are more than welcome to leave.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the retarded traitors think, Pakistan will stay the course and fulfil our destiny.

 

[Zarvan]

Its quite obvious liberals like Pervez Hoodbhoy would not have supported the creation of Pakistan in 1947. While its true that religious scholars differed on creating Pakistan, but each of their views were based on what they thought would have been the most beneficial for the Muslims of the subcontinent , for example many pro-Pakistan ulema abandoned supporting Pakistan after 1947 and similarly many anti-Pakistan ulema who had opposed Quaid e Azam previously supported creation of Pakistan after 1947. These changes of opinions were each scholars personal assessment of whether Pakistan was more advantageous or more disadvantageous to Muslims.

However liberals by definition can never support or be loyal to the concept of Pakistan and therefore they can be expected to utter trash like Hoodbhoy. We also must remember that Hoodbhoy has been a staunch supporter of the secularisation of Pakistan, but even he has to admit Pakistan's religious basis and ideology.

Sabrang Alternative News Network




Pak was born in a state of confusion: Hoodbhoy - Times of India

HYDERABAD: Pakistan is a nation that was born in confusion, is still in confusion but will move out of it in the future - hoped eminent nuclear physicist and author Pervez Hoodbhoy who has, for long, been a champion of the "secular state" notion. "Though I know that it is not welcome in my country and people who deviate from the notion that it is an Islamic state, are looked upon disapprovingly, I strongly feel that's what we need to head towards," Hoodbhoy reiterated.

He was speaking at a session on 'Reimagining Pakistan', organised as part of the ongoing Hyderabad Literary Festival. The Pakistani scholar was joined by Venkat Dhulipala, a US-based professor, historian and writer, on the dais.

The conversation about a secular Pakistan, took both the authors back in history - to the time of partition and Jinnah's fight for a separate "Muslim" nation. While Hoodbhoy spoke of Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a "confused" man whose idea of separating a Hindu nation from a Muslim one fell flat when "east Pakistan broke away in 1971" to form Bangladesh, Dhulipala, quoting from popular theories, painted the founder of Pakistan as a "secular person". "It has been a broadly accepted axiomatic truth that Jinnah wanted it (Pakistan) to be a European style nation state based on secular democracy. And if only he had stuck around longer, he would have been able to nurture that dream. Pakistan would have then emerged as a mirror image of India," the author of 'Creating a New Medina' stated.

Hoodbhoy politely disagreed. Elaborating on his views of Jinnah, the author said how "he didn't have a clue" about what he said or wanted. "On the one hand he spoke of all citizens - irrespective of religion - being equals and on the other he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic State. Sadly, neither he nor anybody till date knows what an Islamic State is," the 66-year-old scholar said, pointing out to his co-panelist how his country, at one point, was indeed a mirror image of India.

"When I grew up in Karachi (he was born three years after partition) our neighbourhood comprised Parsis, Christians and Hindus. We all shared perfect goodwill - as was true of many other neighbourhoods. There were wine stores all over the city. It was actually just like Bombay (Mumbai)," Hoodbhoy reminisced, ruing how his country then "was very different from the country that it has become today".

Harping on the 1947 incident being an "unspeakable tragedy" that "separated people who at one time could live together in peace", the Pakistani writer sincerely prayed that Pakistan, one day, grows into a country where "every citizen has exactly the same right and privileges as of any other, irrespective of their religion, language, class or race".

Quote:

On the one hand he spoke of all citizens - irrespective of religion - being equals and on the other he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic State. Sadly, neither he nor anybody till date knows what an Islamic State is

Pervaiz Hoodbhoy birth was a tragedy and his life is a tragedy just like life of all the pusedo liberal intellectuals

 

[Bornubus]

Partition of Pakistan was not merely based on two nation theory but seperating the natural divide of Indus valley civilization People from the subcontinent.

Indus flows from our Kashmir the land with indian civilization can't complete especially buddhism and shaiva sect.As for the the IVC it's most important port is in present day India which is lothal apart from 100s of sites in Haryana and other states.

Except the above,i agree there is a natural divide between India and Pak,we've nothing in common both racially and culturally,even on cellular level.

 

[MadDog]

Indus flows from our Kashmir the land with indian civilization can't complete especially buddhism and shaiva sect.As for the the IVC it's most important port is in present day India which is lothal apart from 100s of sites in Haryana and other states.

Except the above,i agree there is a natural divide between India and Pak,we've nothing in common both racially and culturally,even on cellular level.

Kashmiris and Punjabis of today's India are people of IVC , the rest are as foreigners to people of Indus as Uzbeks and Tajiks are.
Pakistanis are culturally closer to Indian Punjabis/Kashmiris, Afghan Pushtuns, Iranian Baloch, rest are different, these ethnicities (Punjabi, Afghan/Pushtun, Baloch, Sindhi, Kashmiris) have lived on banks of Indus since thousands of years.
Pakistan itself is an acronym for Punjab, Afghania(old name KPK), Kashmir, Sindh, balochisTAN given by ch Rehmat Ali 1933 in a journal "Now or Never".

Partition was the best thing happened in Indian subcontinent and equally stupid is the idea of Akhand Bharat both politically and Culturally,if it wasn't for 1947 we would've revolted for a partition in future anyway.

Thanks Jinnah and congress.

Partition was the best thing happened in Indian subcontinent and equally stupid is the idea of Akhand Bharat both politically and Culturally,if it wasn't for 1947 we would've revolted for a partition in future anyway.

Thanks Jinnah and congress.

If whole of Punjab would have been in Pakistan as was originally planned, the Punjabi community in India wouldn't have suffered in 1984, they would have been much better off, as partition was of Punjab only, which weakened the Punjabi community in India (as Punjabis in Pak are 60% and in India are merely 1.5%), had whole of Punjab been in Pakistan, there would have been no mass killings and the creation of two states would have been peaceful and overall Punjabi community of present day India would have been much stronger.

 

[Imran Khan]

somehow he is right

 

[Airdef95]

There should be a law in Pakistan to exile every person who spits rubbish against this homeland and our founding father Quaid e Azam.
But then again... Lawmakers, govt officials themselves are like that.

 

[HariPrasad]

Partion took place in 1947 and we accepted and recognize Pakistan. Why this question surfaces in pakistan again and again. It seems that troll justifying separates pakistan are thinking otherwise from inside. Else this would not have been discussed here again and again.

somehow he is right

Namaskra khan saheb. Bahot dino ke bad aap ke darshan hue. Khairiyat to hai?

 

[Bornubus]

Kashmiris and Punjabis of today's India are people of IVC , the rest are as foreigners to people of Indus as Uzbeks and Tajiks are.
Pakistanis are culturally closer to Indian Punjabis/Kashmiris, Afghan Pushtuns, Iranian Baloch, rest are different, these ethnicities (Punjabi, Afghan/Pushtun, Baloch, Sindhi, Kashmiris) have lived on banks of Indus since thousands of years.
Pakistan itself is an acronym for Punjab, Afghania(old name KPK), Kashmir, Sindh, balochisTAN given by ch Rehmat Ali 1933 in a journal "Now or Never".





If whole of Punjab would have been in Pakistan as was originally planned, the Punjabi community in India wouldn't have suffered in 1984, they would have been much better off, as partition was of Punjab only, which weakened the Punjabi community in India (as Punjabis in Pak are 60% and in India are merely 1.5%), had whole of Punjab been in Pakistan, there would have been no mass killings and the creation of two states would have been peaceful and overall Punjabi community of present day India would have been much stronger.

Nope,today people are bonded together on religious line rather than ethnicity,a Sikh of Punjab and Rajput/Brahmanof Jammu has more in common with a central India than their immediate neighbors in Pak Punjab,that was the reason Khatris who migrated from pak has more importance of indian rivers rather than Indus similarly a Punjabi jutt has more to do with Chenab or beas,we are happy with our part of IVC whatever comes in present day India and in any case Indian civilization is a way bigger than IVC which is just a smaller part of this civilization thousands of years old.99% of Sikh religious sites are in India as far as Maharashtra and Bengal same goes for Hindus and Buddhists.India is natural home of Hindu/Sikhs and Buddhist.

Also for Afghan/pashtuns their native land is Afghanistan or some say they migrated from further west,it was only Sikhs who conquered their territories from their parent country and merged with present day pak.


As for 1984,you have little idea about the history of Sikhs whom their Gurus sacrificed their life and what is their military history,Sikhs made a decision to remain with India which is their motherland.Few Sikhs (less than Malaysia) remained in Pak.

This is their country and always will,why do you think 20% of our army is made of Sikhs,with couple of Army chiefs,PM and president.

Even compare the economy, development, HDI of both punjab ,it only proves that partition was the best thing for Punjab and for India.

 

[Fracker]

Ever heard of Jinnah's direct action day? That was one year before the independence day and that is when things got completely out of control. It was started by Muslim League and continued until after independence.

Direct action day was the protest against government. It's Congress who bring Hindus into it. The demand of direct action day was not to kick out all Hindus out but before decolonisation bristishers should solve the partition issues. Congress spread falsehood that Muslims planning to kick Hindus out of their regions.

It was acceptance of defeat from Congress who went couldn't stop partition they bring Hindus in front of Muslims. Otherwise tell me what Hindus even doing in Muslims protest against government?

 

[Imran Khan]

Partion took place in 1947 and we accepted and recognize Pakistan. Why this question surfaces in pakistan again and again. It seems that troll justifying separates pakistan are thinking otherwise from inside. Else this would not have been discussed here again and again.



Namaskra khan saheb. Bahot dino ke bad aap ke darshan hue. Khairiyat to hai?

namakaar sarkaar . i am here and continuing posting janab may be you missed my rants

 

[Pakistani E]

Just because Pakistan is not run the way you want, you disgrace its founder and the memories of all those people who sacrificed their everything for it? I am very disappointed with Dr Hoodbhoy. Although I still respect him, I think this has gone too far. It's better to work with other Pakistanis in trying to reform our society and educate our people in multiculturalism instead of giving out blatantly stupid statements like the above.

Jinnah wasn't wrong, he had the example of Jammu and Kashmir, and the rule of Punjab under the Sikhs infront of him. The fact is, the Hindu/Sikh establishment has been looking for revenge for the years of Muslim rule. Look what they did in the Punjab after taking over mosques and Muslim areas. Look what they did in Jammu and Kashmir to the Muslim peasants. Has Mr Hoodbhoy ever studied the history of these regions under Sikh/hindu Rule?

There was a very specific reason for wanting to protect the rights of Muslim minorities in a united India. Those reasons were based on examples we had infront of us whenever and wherever Hindus and Sikhs managed to maintain governance over Muslim population. And now, with the election of Modi, the thoughts and predictions of our elders have come true.

I for one am happy that the Hindu India finally has a voice in a Hindu nationalists PM. The emboldened actions of Hindu nationalists in the media and the society is a validation of the need for a seperate homeland for Muslims of the sub continent.

His problems should be with the running of the country, not the country itself. I am an Ahmadi, whos community has faced state sanctioned persecution. But does that mean we start questioning the existence of the country? Of course not, our position was, and has always been that Pakistan should be a pluralistic state that does not favour one religion/sect over another, exactly how Jinnah envisioned it when he chose his diverse cabinet.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Indus flows from our Kashmir the land with indian civilization can't complete especially buddhism and shaiva sect.As for the the IVC it's most important port is in present day India which is lothal apart from 100s of sites in Haryana and other states.

Except the above,i agree there is a natural divide between India and Pak,we've nothing in common both racially and culturally,even on cellular level.

Agreed.

 

[Kao Boy]

Pakistan was not a brainchild of Jinnah rather he wanted to have a saperate province and equal job opportunities for Muslims along with Hindus as Muslims were quite backward due to the traditional type of education from Madrasas but Hindus picked up the change quickly and excelled. It was the Mullahs and other Islamist who advised him to ask for a separate country to govern people as per Islamic rule... This sowed seed of Muslim Nation in Jinnah which till the end strived to make it a Secular Muslim state with everyone equal rights... but soon after Pakistan was was born... and later leaders took it forward as a different notion.. Second Amendment in Pakistan Constitution declared Ahmadiyyas as non Muslims which were initially invited to be a part of Pakistan by Jinnah as a sect of Muslims...

I do not see anything wrong which the gentleman said...

Pakistan was not a brainchild of Jinnah rather he wanted to have a saperate province and equal job opportunities for Muslims along with Hindus as Muslims were quite backward due to the traditional type of education from Madrasas but Hindus picked up the change quickly and excelled. It was the Mullahs and other Islamist who advised him to ask for a separate country to govern people as per Islamic rule... This sowed seed of Muslim Nation in Jinnah which till the end strived to make it a Secular Muslim state with everyone equal rights... but soon after Pakistan was was born... and later leaders took it forward as a different notion.. Second Amendment in Pakistan Constitution declared Ahmadiyyas as non Muslims which were initially invited to be a part of Pakistan by Jinnah as a sect of Muslims...

I do not see anything wrong which the gentleman said...