Quaid E Azam Liberal or Secular ? | Dr Amir Liaquat | 25 Dec 2016

[cocomo]

If secularism or non theocratic society was the way to go, just an autonomy within the Union of India would have been sufficient.

Don't you feel that Pakistanis don't like being ruled by Hindus especially the terrorist Modi kind. Maybe its true am I right? Talks about theocracy and secularism are secondary.

I understand Muslims have a problem with being ruled by any non Muslim. I will accept that. But you say there were reasons. Give exact examples.

Your question has the answer bro. Sadly no akhand bharat for you.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Agreed.

And honestly, Pakistan has not done justice to his creation. The Anglo Saxon law is still largely the law of the land and the Institutions are not entirely Shariah based either. It does not make sense. If secularism or non theocratic society was the way to go, just an autonomy within the Union of India would have been sufficient. Even Zia did not complete Jinnah's vision. In spite of all this, Zia is hated by many Pakistanis. I absolutely don't understand why.


I understand you have no answers. I will wait for other members to answer.

There might not be immediate answers during the period before August 1947 but the foresight the founding fathers of Pakistan had was highly accurate. This is confirmed by the treatment of Kashmiris by the indian military in IOK. Nor do we want to be treated like 2nd or 3rd class citizens like the indian Muslims are.

 

[Hamza913]

Agreed.

And honestly, Pakistan has not done justice to his creation. The Anglo Saxon law is still largely the law of the land and the Institutions are not entirely Shariah based either. It does not make sense. If secularism or non theocratic society was the way to go, just an autonomy within the Union of India would have been sufficient. Even Zia did not complete Jinnah's vision. In spite of all this, Zia is hated by many Pakistanis. I absolutely don't understand why.

Our country is very confusing.

 

[SW187]

Agreed.

And honestly, Pakistan has not done justice to his creation. The Anglo Saxon law is still largely the law of the land and the Institutions are not entirely Shariah based either. It does not make sense. If secularism or non theocratic society was the way to go, just an autonomy within the Union of India would have been sufficient. Even Zia did not complete Jinnah's vision. In spite of all this, Zia is hated by many Pakistanis. I absolutely don't understand why.


I understand you have no answers. I will wait for other members to answer.

my 2 cents... as a Canadian born to Indian Muslim parents, and I myself married to a Pakistani, take my opinion as being unbiased and simply my 2 cents.

I think if secularism was possible before the time of partition, and Muslims could have lived with freedom to practice their faith (as I believe all peoples of all religions should be allowed) then there might not have been a reason to create Pakistan. But what exists in theory is seldom what exists in practice, and even in Pakistan, Jinnah's vision is being greatly ignored, as I doubt he would want Muslim intolerance towards Pakistanis of other faiths (Sikh, Christian, Hindu), or sectarian violence within Muslims. Indian is also still not a truly secular state, Muslims still face persecution.

It is easy to have a vision, and wonderful to imagine a dream coming true. One cannot fault Jinnah or any other world leader that has existed throughout history for their attempts in ruling and leading a country. It is a big burden to lead, and no man is perfect.

So, what we have is WHAT WE HAVE, and I doubt it will ever be perfect, but this is the struggle of life, and no matter what, life goes on. Maybe one day we can look back at the situation and say it has become better. What will that "better" be compared to or judged against? There is no perfect country on this planet.

 

[Apprentice]

What is the race? How is the Punjabi race different in Panjab and Punjab? How is the race different between Sindhi Hindus and Muslims? Or Balouch Hindus and Muslims or Pashtun Sikhs and Muslims?.

Just a few minor corrections bro. There is no such thing as a Baloch Hindu or Pashtun Sikh. There may be Hindus/ Sikhs living in Pastun/Baloch areas and speaking their language but ethnically the Baloch were never Hindus. Not sure about the Pashtuns.

Punjab and Sindh were definitely part of ancient Hindu society though. As well as Bengal.

Pakistan: Secular or Islamic? Read and decide

 

[SarthakGanguly]

There is no such thing as a Baloch Hindu

Baluchistan is one the peeths of Hinduism. Hinglaj mataji's mandir is there. Very Ancient.

Our country is very confusing.

Without Zia's Islamization, Pakistan would not have survived this long. You guys make fun of Indian castes. But Pakistani society is extremely divided into so many castes - Barelvi, Deobandis, the regular Shia, Sunni, Ahmedia, etc etc. The unity that you see is largely due to his reforms. Especially after the East Pakistanis showed how differences can get serious.

 

[Apprentice]

Baluchistan is one the peeths of Hinduism. Hinglaj mataji's mandir is there. Very Ancient.

The Hinglaj Mata is in the sindhi area of Balochistan I think. Baloch themselves were never Hindus.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Don't you feel that Pakistanis don't like being ruled by Hindus especially the terrorist Modi kind. Maybe its true am I right? Talks about theocracy and secularism are secondary.



Your question has the answer bro. Sadly no akhand bharat for you.

No sane Indian wants Akhand Bharat. Except for some sentimental secularists. The vast majority of Hindus especially don't want it.

There is no need to pin the blame on Modi. The Pakistani 'dislike' for India predates Modi. Face it. It's all right.

In fact I totally get the psychology. When a minority rules a nation, and then loses the political power - this is what happens. The Muslims of India had no complaints AS LONG as they had the political power. ONLY when they had to share the political power with the 'heathens', did the 'fear' come in. And some of the fears were justified. Obviously many people who were enslaved were not going to make much difference between the elite and middle class Muslims who actually ruled and the lower working class people. I understand it and respect that sentiment. Of course I don't sympathize with it - simply because my community was among the enslaved. Separating before the Hindus could treat Muslims at best as equals (even this was often unacceptable to the Muslim ex-royalty) was a safe choice.

The Hinglaj Mata is in the sindhi area of Balochistan I think. Baloch themselves were never Hindus.

They were mixed - animists, Zoroastrians, and Hindus. But Hindus were there, strongly. In fact they ruled before the invasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratarajas

 

[PakGuns]

I believe Jinnah's speech which some tried to censor was congreluted by political and religious fanatics of the time. However regardless of it all Qaid's Pakistan was always envisioned to be the Islamic Republic but with minorities getting equal rights. Meaning although it was suppose to be a Muslim country, there was not suppose to be any kind of discrimination based on race, religion or colour. All citizens of Pakistan whether christians, muslims, sikhs or hindus for that matter were to be equal. Freedom for all under an Islamic umbrella.

We must not confuse liberal with secular.

Unfortunately the religious clerics and the political representatives have misused the formation of Pakistan to their own liking. It sad that even after 70 years we are still arguing over what or who Pakistan was made for.

He wanted Pakistan to be opposite of what india was at that time....

 

[Apprentice]

No sane Indian wants Akhand Bharat. Except for some sentimental secularists. The vast majority of Hindus especially don't want it.

There is no need to pin the blame on Modi. The Pakistani 'dislike' for India predates Modi. Face it. It's all right.

In fact I totally get the psychology. When a minority rules a nation, and then loses the political power - this is what happens. The Muslims of India had no complaints AS LONG as they had the political power. ONLY when they had to share the political power with the 'heathens', did the 'fear' come in. And some of the fears were justified. Obviously many people who were enslaved were not going to make much difference between the elite and middle class Muslims who actually ruled and the lower working class people. I understand it and respect that sentiment. Of course I don't sympathize with it - simply because my community was among the enslaved. Separating before the Hindus could treat Muslims at best as equals (even this was often unacceptable to the Muslim ex-royalty) was a safe choice.


They were mixed - animists, Zoroastrians, and Hindus. But Hindus were there, strongly. In fact they ruled before the invasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratarajas

It says they were an 'Iranian' people. Do you have a source which secifically mentions Hinduism?

The Baloch are medieval arrivals from Middle East (?). Before them the Brahui were in Balochistan. The Brahui might have been Hindus but I am not sure. And I don't know who was there before the Brahui.

I found this abt Balochistan's Hindu history though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewa_Dynasty

But am not sure which ethnicity the Sewa dynasty were from. They were clearly not Baloch or Brahui (since the Brahui displaced them). Do you have any info?

 

[Malik Usman]

Sir @Azlan Haider you must listen to this program if you can understand urdu.

This idiot is not a Dr. don't call him Dr..............he is fake degree holder.....

 

[war&peace]

This idiot is not a Dr. don't call him Dr..............he is fake degree holder.....

That I don't know but media calls him Dr Amir. It should be challenged in the court so that he does not use the title Dr with his name.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

It says they were an 'Iranian' people. Do you have a source which secifically mentions Hinduism?

The Baloch are medieval arrivals from Middle East (?). Before them the Brahui were in Balochistan. The Brahui might have been Hindus but I am not sure. And I don't know who was there before the Brahui.

I found this abt Balochistan's Hindu history though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewa_Dynasty

But am not sure which ethnicity the Sewa dynasty were from. They were clearly not Baloch or Brahui (since the Brahui displaced them). Do you have any info?

Hindus can be of any race. Including Iranians.

 

[cocomo]

When a minority rules a nation, and then loses the political power - this is what happens.

I agree with it somewhat, I heard Vali Nasr saying this once. But I presume Pakistan is a unique case, can you give me an example of another nation being born because of the fear of majority?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I agree with it somewhat, I heard Vali Nasr saying this once. But I presume Pakistan is a unique case, can you give me an example of another nation being born because of the fear of majority?

Israel.