What's new

Speech of Abul Kalam Azad about separation of Indo-Pak.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just have to one thing about Abdul Kalam Azad..

He was a Congressi Maulvi, History doesn't even remember him.

Azad was the Zakir naik of his days..do the comparison and one will know..Islamic identity in sub continent is based on Turkic, Arabic and Persian influences which was completely different to Indian culture based on its own thousands years civilization. And for this reason alone, Muslims being a minority would never stand equal in united India.

While Jinnah and his aids envisioned a modern secular Pakistan excelling in science and technology these moulvis contributed to keep the Muslims backward with their nonsense fatwas and stone age ideology. After the partition, they were no more welcome in their beloved India and dragged their nasty menace into Pakistan. Part our fault that we not only let them in but join the national politics as well.
 
Last edited:
.
somebozo said:
While Jinnah and his aids envisioned a modern secular Pakistan excelling in science and technology these moulvis contributed to keep the Muslims backward with their nonsense fatwas and stone age ideology. After the partition, they were no more welcome in their beloved India and dragged their nasty menace into Pakistan. Part our fault that we not only let them in but join the national politics as well.

:disagree:

Maulana Azad (yes him not Nehru) established the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) AND the University Grants Comission (UGC), which at that time supported premier institutions like ISM Dhanbad, IISc Bangalore and BITS Pilani


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_Kalam_Azad
 
Last edited:
. .
Who was Jinnah?

Our founder Mohamed Ali Jinnah was undoubtedly a great man. Even those who did not like his politics thought he was no ordinary mortal. Our own habit of mythologising him may be forgivable but it hides important facts. My contention is that even if you take out the embellishments, the Quaid emerges as a man of stature.

An effort has been made to present the ‘true Jinnah’ in The Jinnah Anthology, (Third Edition) compiled and edited by Liaquat H Merchant & Shariful M ujahid (OUP 2010). I hold both compilers in great esteem. Liaquat Merchant (Sitara-i-Imtiaz) is the grandson of Jinnah’s sister, Mariambai, and an eminent lawyer of Karachi who looks after the estate of Quaid-i-Azam and runs the Quaid-i-Azam Aligarh Education Trust. Mr Mujahid is a personal friend to whom I owe a lot.

Some facts in the book are revelations. The American biographer of Jinnah, Stanley Wolpert, says: “Another fond aspiration of Jinnah’s last years of life was to achieve “friendly and cordial” relations between Pakistan and “Hindustan”, as he called India, during his brief tenure as Governor-General” (p.3). Merchant tells us that Jinnah once told a Hindu journalist that “now that he had got Pakistan, he had no longer any grudge against the Hindus. In fact, he was anxious to revert to his old and familiar role of ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. He wanted to constitute himself as the protector-general of the Hindu minority in Pakistan” (p.88). Today’s Pakistan is run by India-centric generals undaunted by past failures of this unrealistic credo.

As for today’s narrow-minded obsession with Islam, Shariful Mujahid tells us that Jinnah turned away from the Khilafat agitation (1920-1922) because of its religious bigotry (p.22). Before Wolpert, Hector Bolitho was Jinnah’s ‘official’ biographer, subject to censorship by then Principal Information Officer Majeed Malik. Mohammad Raza Kazimi thinks that Malik cut out much that should have been left in and that Bolitho was handicapped by Ms Fatima Jinnah’s refusal to show him (Bolitho) her memoir of her brother. (Because Bolitho was commissioned without her consent!)

There is a photo of a note scribbled by Jinnah saying Pakistan should have a presidential form of government, most probably influenced by Charles de Gaulle (p.81). It says: “Dangers of parliamentary form of government. It has worked satisfactorily so far in England and where else? Presidential Form of Government (more suitable to Pakistan)” (p.81).

As recorded earlier by Merchant in his book Quaid-e-Azam: A judicial verdict, this book gives evidence of a Shia ghusl (bathing) given to Jinnah before his burial. It significantly adds that the ghusl was jointly given by Sunni and Shia clerics.

Jinnah was a part of his father’s name: Jeenabhai Poonja, who named him Mohamed Ali, which could also be written in the Ismaili style: Mohamedali. In The Shaping of Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva and Beyond (Penguin 2005), it is noted that Jina was a common name among Gujaratis and also among Muslims who started settling in Gujarat in the 12th century. Many Muslims (Bohra, Khoja, Memon) included local converts, all claiming to be from the Lohana tribe.

Gujarat being India’s first port, everyone traded. And Jains were among the dominant Hindu community, often naming their sons Jina, meaning victor from the root ‘jai’. Jinnah changed Jeenabhai to Jinnah and dropped Poonja; otherwise he would have been ‘Mohamedali Jeenabhai Poonja’.

The Lohana are the offspring of Ram’s son, Loh. Lahore is named after him, his name meaning ‘small’ because he was the younger son. The Lohana think their ancient territory was northwest of South Asia, stretching up to Afghanistan. Today, Jinnah is most popular in this stretch which is present-day Pakistan.

 
.
Here is what Jinnah said:

"Our own paramount interests demand that the Dominion of Pakistan and the Dominion of India should co-ordinate for the purpose of playing their part in international affairs. It is of vital importance to Pakistan and India as independent sovereign states to collaborate in a friendly way to jointly defend their frontiers both on land and sea against any aggression. But this depends entirely on whether Pakistan and India can resolve their own differences,"

“The two states [Pakistan and India] will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America.”
 
.
what about abdul-kalam azad , calling india darul-herb at the eve of khilfat movement .... many muslims tried to migrate to afghanistan but were refused to enter by afghan govt. they were were so badly disturbed but maulana sahib active in indian politics..........
 
.
Im yet to see anything that convinces me to the need for two nations.Britishers rules over both Hindus and Muslims. Mughals rules over Hindus and Muslims.

Why raise the bogey of a separate nation only when Hindus are in majority and power is in doubt?

I dont believe that Pakistani's are from a different stock than Indians.Anyhow, if thats taken as true then there is no reason for India to have peace with Pakistan as then its inhabited with people whose ancestors rules over largely Hindu India and will try to do so again.

If the racial stock is by and large the same, then the two nation theory is bogus anyways.I dont think Pakistan understands problems that Indians have with the theory.I for one am unable to understand the reason for the same, just as Tamils movement against Hindi was...
 
.
TWO NATION THEORY IS VERY VALID what about act of babri mosque when a mob in open destroyed it and court too decided in their favour no one can think of that in PAKISTAN and blasphemy law that can,t even be thought in INDIA and relation with ISRAEL and many many more ............
come on thanks to ALLAH PAK that we got a home land for us ........
what congress did post 1937 and who is in power in india bjp and congress both hindu parties and muslims are minoroties....
here we are majority no bjp or congress to interfere....
 
.
:disagree:

Maulana Azad (yes him not Nehru) established the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) AND the University Grants Comission (UGC), which at that time supported premier institutions like ISM Dhanbad, IISc Bangalore and BITS Pilani


Abul Kalam Azad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus, the National Insitute of Tecnology in Bhopal was named 'Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology' in his honour

Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comments were not directed towards Azad but a large majority of Moulvi lot which were not like Azad. While Azad did contribute materialistically and intellectually those are none excuses to ignore his betrayal or shot sightness. In a lose term he opted for materialism over identity and ideology. Over a period of history Muslims have expanded their global foot prints by conversion, conquests and trade. Birth of Pakistan was the chain link in same cycle. And so was birth of Bosnia and Kosovar. If India invalidates the two nation theory and uses that as a basis to reject Kashmiri demands then it should also drop its diplomatic relations with Bosnia and never recognize Kosovar which it has not as of yet!

TWO NATION THEORY IS VERY VALID what about act of babri mosque when a mob in open destroyed it and court too decided in their favour no one can think of that in PAKISTAN and blasphemy law that can,t even be thought in INDIA and relation with ISRAEL and many many more ............
come on thanks to ALLAH PAK that we got a home land for us ........
what congress did post 1937 and who is in power in india bjp and congress both hindu parties and muslims are minoroties....
here we are majority no bjp or congress to interfere....

Better two than 400!
Some people selectively like to ignore the history pre-British India era and act as if they inherited the south asia..as such no point arguing..If it was not for the English, there wouldn't be a country named India or Pakistan on the map today..just a few hundred loose princely states fighting each other. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
.
TWO NATION THEORY IS VERY VALID what about act of babri mosque when a mob in open destroyed it and court too decided in their favour no one can think of that in PAKISTAN and blasphemy law that can,t even be thought in INDIA and relation with ISRAEL and many many more ............
come on thanks to ALLAH PAK that we got a home land for us ........
what congress did post 1937 and who is in power in india bjp and congress both hindu parties and muslims are minoroties....
here we are majority no bjp or congress to interfere....

CMon !

U mean to say jinnah sir had a time machine in which he saw the acts of babri 44 yrs hence and took da decision of partition.....

u dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand that what all happened to muslims in india after 40 odd years was a accumulation of hatred developed BECAUSE OF PARTITION !

muslims are hated just and just coz of skepticism of being ISI agents and pro pakistanis(that was da case 20 odd yrs back when common man had no access to media)..

infact Pakistan was partition only on the SKEPTICISM THEORY by MR.Jinna who thought, muslims will be slaughtered by majority hindus !

Tell me, 60+ yrs of independence and whr is indian muslim and where are pakistani muslims....... u wont find any difference and hence u wont find any need of pakistan.......

regarding 2 incidents of babri and godhra, i will give u 2000 incidents of suicide bombings by Talibanis ! does it give any theory ? no not at all.......both are irrelevant to form any theory.....

infact ethnical clashes are truth of every country...even northern ireland and england.......but that doesnt justify any partition tough ! N Irelnd is till with UK !

CMon, 2 incidents which happened half century late never justify a step equal to partition. it was a foolish step to take because of which both countries are suffereng..and frankly pakistan is suffering more.....still u guyz justify just coz hes ur father of nation ? some rationality plz !

just imagine.......NO demand of partition.....

NO pre and post 1947 slaughter and 1948 war
NO kashmir issue
NO hatred
NO Babri
NO Godhra
NO..........
NO..........

i have given u with facts so many drawbacks.....give me 1 good point pakistan has achieved after getting partitioned.

Now no abstract theories plz ! Only factual analysis.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
.
The comments were not directed towards Azad but a large majority of Moulvi lot which were not like Azad. While Azad did contribute materialistically and intellectually those are none excuses to ignore his betrayal or shot sightness. In a lose term he opted for materialism over identity and ideology. Over a period of history Muslims have expanded their global foot prints by conversion, conquests and trade. Birth of Pakistan was the chain link in same cycle. And so was birth of Bosnia and Kosovar. If India invalidates the two nation theory and uses that as a basis to reject Kashmiri demands then it should also drop its diplomatic relations with Bosnia and never recognize Kosovar which it has not as of yet!

Better two than 400!
Some people selectively like to ignore the history pre-British India era and act as if they inherited the south asia..as such no point arguing..If it was not for the English, there wouldn't be a country named India or Pakistan on the map today..just a few hundred loose princely states fighting each other. :cheers:


he he...british themselves were owning only parts of india tough.....:rofl:

even india wasnt united under british too ! 1200 princely states during british rules......

dont credit british unecessarily.......yes u can do it for the fact, their rule created a sense of unity among indian revolutionaries who fought for a united india !

it was naturally to happen......no credti to unwanted whatsoever !
 
.
We should have a forum policy of not discussing whether two nation theory was right or wrong..Whatever happened 60 years ago happened.Now we have india and pakistan as sovereign nations and we should learn to live with that.

That is actually a policy Indians need to adopt in general, not just on this forum, and stop questioning Pakistan's existence and overtly or covertly arguing for the unification of the nations or claiming they were ever one nation.
 
.
Thats true..and frankly no one is......but u do have right to defend !

so the same thing has to be mutual..hence make it a policy, no indian OR pakistani wud bring 2 state theory again ! What say ?
 
.
Thats true..and frankly no one is......but u do have right to defend !

so the same thing has to be mutual..hence make it a policy, no indian OR pakistani wud bring 2 state theory again ! What say ?
 
.
Pakistanis need to understand that there was a wholesome country or atleast the struggle for a united Hindustan before Pakistan was even a figment of anyone's imagination. You have a seperate country, accepted. It doesnt mean that you have to forget that you were a result of "Partition" and most of it was politically motivated. Any idealogy never demands a seperation with bloodshed! do they?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom