So Jinnah, the father of the nation created this country for the military and not for the civilians

[Genghis khan1]

I didn't want to answer this, but, Yes, with how things look. Lol.

@DigBick How much DigBick grease is required to keep one JF-17 flying?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

جناح صاحب کے خاب و خیال میں بھی اگر ایسا پاکستان ہوتا تو وہ اپنے ہاتھ سے ریزولوشن پاس کراتے کہ انگریز مزید ایک ہزار سال ہم پر حکومت کریں ۔

We would be much more developed under UK, their railway is still running.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

A moth eaten Pakistan is still better than no Pakistan.....

 

[Finer]

the mislims in hindustan killed far far less then muslims in pakistan only WOT 80000 were killed .

Not true and not reported either at the account of genocide. Stupid post given that polices, governments, medias and mobs are involved at the official capacity on the large scale committing massive genocide unreportely.

It is one thing to be emotional about Imran khan but undermines the threat Muslims in India face on large scale is stupidity of the highest order. No offence.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

A moth eaten Pakistan is still better than no Pakistan.....

The standard for Pakistan to achieve set by Mohammad Ali Jinnah was very high.
all those people were highly educated and Top 5% in term of intellect. To be a Lawyer in that era was really 1 in million.

Iqbal left books and books worth of advice for future generation encoded in poems which remain available to people even today.

We are bound by the burden of Excellence we need to attain , so in aftermath of our lives we will be able to face those forefathers.

That is why we must struggle in order to raise level of Excellence in country

 

[epebble]

Whosoever came with these thought looks legit.

Other countries have army or armies.

Here the Army has a country.

That quote originally referred to Prussia, now part of Germany.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I think Jinnah wanted a separate state for Muslims. Democracy was not central to it. In fact, there is an element of contradiction between All men are created Equal and Two (or Many) nation theory. So, no need to drag Jinnah into current political problems.

Jinnah was a Fabianist, and an ardent supporter of democracy. As per him, Islam stood for absolute equality of manhood (a position rejected by traditionalists).

Two Nation Theory never implied 'inequality' or superiority of one nation (i.e. Muslims) over another (i.e. Hindus) .. Quite the contrary, it was meant to safeguard the rights of equality and non-discrimination of a (Muslim) minority, and to bring the Muslims to a minimum level of equality with Hindus in the exercise of their human and fundamental rights. People may belong to different nations and yet be equal. These aren't mutually exclusive positions. No contradiction there

 

[Tamerlane]

A moth eaten Pakistan is still better than no Pakistan.....

At least we have some hope. But looking back hypothetically, the Muslims of India have been divided into three parts—in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

As a result, for the first time in 1000 years, Hindus have achieved dominance over 600 million Muslims. Muslims in India are treated like dirt, Bangladesh is under Indian hegemony. India backs terrorism in Pakistan without any response. It’s not far from accepting Indian hegemony.

Hypothetically, in a united India with 600 million Muslims and 1000 million Hindus the balance would have been more even and Muslims would have been able to get a lot more rights.

The intention of the founding fathers was right, but it’s turned into a disaster for the Muslims of the subcontinent.

All we have left is hope.

 

[epebble]

Hypothetically, in a united India with 600 million Muslims and 1000 million Hindus the balance would have been more even and Muslims would have been able to get a lot more rights

Though that might me an interesting thought, such a large country with so many Muslims would be very unstable without a repressive government like old USSR or PRC. What if things went wrong and the whole country became a Pakistan with 1.6 billion people? Part of the lesson we are learning from Iraq war now is how crucial Saddam Hussain was for stability of Iraq. Same with Ayatollah's of Iran, Erdogan of Türkiye and Mubarak/Sisi of Egypt. At present we are watching the tragedy in Syria when Assad became weak. Also, Afghanistan was unstable without Taliban coming back to power.

 

[YeBeWarned]

We only like Jinnah on Rupee, rest no one care.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Though that might me an interesting thought, such a large country with so many Muslims would be very unstable without a repressive government like old USSR or PRC. What if things went wrong and the whole country became a Pakistan with 1.6 billion people? Part of the lesson we are learning from Iraq war now is how crucial Saddam Hussain was for stability of Iraq. Same with Ayatollah's of Iran, Erdogan of Türkiye and Mubarak/Sisi of Egypt. At present we are watching the tragedy in Syria when Assad became weak. Also, Afghanistan was unstable without Taliban coming back to power.

Strong man argument is a simplistic look at a larger problem.

It deflect in fact from the core issues... nascent, often client states unable to carry their own weight are easier to manage/manipulate through strong men backed by armed militia, secret police or military. It was similarly applied in certain European, South American, Asian and African countries. The bottom line is to arrest the devolution of power where it rightfully belongs. It is messy and takes it's times... but societies torn apart by conflict or heavy handed state apparatus only fosters negativity.

Once the strong man is removed/overthrown, all hell breaks loose.

 

[epebble]

Strong man argument is a simplistic look at a larger problem.

It deflect in fact from the core issues... nascent, often client states unable to carry their own weight are easier to manage/manipulate through strong men backed by armed militia, secret police or military. It was similarly applied in certain European, South American, Asian and African countries. The bottom line is to arrest the devolution of power where it rightfully belongs. It is messy and takes it's times... but societies torn apart by conflict or heavy handed state apparatus only fosters negativity.

Once the strong man is removed/overthrown, all hell breaks loose.

Problem is, in reality, no good replacement for authoritarian governments has been found for large Muslim nations. Prior to Iraq war, there was a lot of afterglow from the end of Cold War and dissolution of USSR that somehow democracy has trumped over totalitarianism and the world will see the obvious truth and freedom will ring true everywhere. Iraq (and Afghanistan later) put paid to that theory and now there is greater realism that democracy is not really an exportable system and certain cultures do best under authoritarian regimes. The success of PRC in recent times goes to reinforce the shallowness of the argument that the consent of the governed is paramount. Also, the color revolutions in the Middle east that brought chaos confirmed the error of constantly promoting democracy over stability. Now you no longer hear 'spreading democracy abroad' as a goal of foreign policy.

 

[imadul]

Javed Ghamdi speaks ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1638854222832713728

 

[RescueRanger]

A moth eaten Pakistan is still better than no Pakistan.....

This.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Problem is, in reality, ...

Again, not true!
The pretense of domineering over the governed! How ridiculous is that...?
The answer is the solution is not acceptable in the prevailing rules based order.

The malcontents will have to stick it out...