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

[WAR-rior]

The Quaid was a visionary leader - and he did not take lightly the creation of Pakistan, but analysed that this was the logical result of congress and nehru machinations, and the best chance to safe guard Muslim rights.

well sorry if i dont impress u with my views about jinnah sir but i have my reasons and i have explained it in earlier post.

I refuse to accept jinnah as a visionary leader and so do nehru.....

both had their own issues but both lacked vision otherwise we wudnt have faced what we are facing now.

aactual visionary was gandhi who never supported partition. he said HINDUS AND MUSLIMS ARE 2 EYES OF MOTHER INDIA.....DONT BLIND HER PLZ !

but nehru and jinnah were in their own sway of future aspirations ans skepticism respectively.

blamin nehru by pakistanis and jinnah by indians is just a DEFENCE MECHANISM.....

ultimately we all know the truth that partition has taken as nowhere and only created deep trench! see indian muslims and tell me, were they or are they any different to u after partition ? hence the whole theory of partition failed which was forseen by gandhi....now this is vision ! isnt it ?

u can come up with babri and godhra for ur defence......but ask ur parents what was the defence before babri happened ?

even today its skepticism that keeps us away and especially pakistan economically struggling...u guyz cud have benefited so much from the subcontinent demographics......and i say this skepticism was started my jinnah.....not to deny nehru equally responsible......but it was too skeptical by jinnah which no visionary leader shud be !

Thanks !

 

[WAR-rior]

It is not misrepresentation - we achieved Independence from the British Empire - and Ancient Pakistan is also a fact, in that it is our land.

alright sir ! whatever makes u happy.....

 

[Rafi]

well sorry if i dont impress u with my views about jinnah sir but i have my reasons and i have explained it in earlier post.

I refuse to accept jinnah as a visionary leader and so do nehru.....

both had their own issues but both lacked vision otherwise we wudnt have faced what we are facing now.

aactual visionary was gandhi who never supported partition. he said HINDUS AND MUSLIMS ARE 2 EYES OF MOTHER INDIA.....DONT BLIND HER PLZ !

but nehru and jinnah were in their own sway of future aspirations ans skepticism respectively.

blamin nehru by pakistanis and jinnah by indians is just a DEFENCE MECHANISM.....

ultimately we all know the truth that partition has taken as nowhere and only created deep trench! see indian muslims and tell me, were they or are they any different to u after partition ? hence the whole theory of partition failed which was forseen by gandhi....now this is vision ! isnt it ?

u can come up with babri and godhra for ur defence......but ask ur parents what was the defence before babri happened ?

even today its skepticism that keeps us away and especially pakistan economically struggling...u guyz cud have benefited so much from the subcontinent demographics......and i say this skepticism was started my jinnah.....not to deny nehru equally responsible......but it was too skeptical by jinnah which no visionary leader shud be !

Thanks !

we will have to agree to disagree, to us Pakistanis the Quaid was a visionary - and Gandhi is to also be respected to an extant.

In the Punjab there were tensions before the independence movement. And our economy historically has done quite well, and we will rise again.

 

[WAR-rior]

we will have to agree to disagree, to us Pakistanis the Quaid was a visionary - and Gandhi is to also be respected to an extant.

In the Punjab there were tensions before the independence movement. And our economy historically has done quite well, and we will rise again.

well in due respect! ur reply is product of optimism - which is indeed good - but not factual....

u will do better.....there is no doubt in that...and i dont mind respecting jinnah....afterall he too was human and what all he did was for the betterment of muslims.....

I AM NOT DOUNBTING HIS INTENSIONS....its just CREDIBILITY OF HIS ACTIONS.....

hope u understand....intent and action neednt be unidirectional !

Its just if u help me understand why u feel Mr. Jinnah was a GREAT VISIONARY then i might upgrade my knowledge base.

Thanks !

 

[American Pakistani]

ohh......i liked ur offer !

by da way are u zaid hameed fan ?

plz tell us , so that we can take u seriously accordingly !

self deleted

 

[WAR-rior]

Nope, respected sir, i didn't met your d*d*y uptill now

Well i was just giving idea to Indian friends as you guys keep on talking about partition this & that, so i clearly mean that if you guys are seriously interested in merging with Pakistan than accept it.

hmm one more reply from me will be off topic tough.....so back to da point.....

we dont mind keeping da name pakistan......but that will be a completely secular country and not islamic republic like current pakistan.....

what say?

 

[American Pakistani]

hmm one more reply from me will be off topic tough.....so back to da point.....

we dont mind keeping da name pakistan......but that will be a completely secular country and not islamic republic like current pakistan.....

what say?

Well I love & dream for Secular Pakistan even if India merge or not. So i support ur idea. I follow the Sufi Muslim culture which gives the message of unity & harmony among ppls no matter what religion or ethnic they belong to.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTxZy32Fv_0

 

[sensenreason]

The Quaid was a visionary leader - and he did not take lightly the creation of Pakistan, but analysed that this was the logical result of congress and nehru machinations, and the best chance to safe guard Muslim rights.

One of the issue, I have with the two-state theory is the premise that 'Hindus' cannot guarantee Muslim rights in a multi-ethnic united India. While British educated Nehru and British educated Jinnah were Hindus and Muslims respectively; but both in their own ways hardly represented their communities and had a secular agenda...which rejects the greatness of the land over centuries.

If Hindu nationalists were in power it would have made sense but Congress from day one was secular (lets say soft on minorities). So obviously the division of the two countries was not such a intellectually thought through solution but rather a quickly disguised compromise.Ofcourse,both side quickly created propaganda material ie diplomatic policies and text books and started to brain wash citizens.

The fact that the British ruled India for 3 centuries shows the moral bankruptcy of the elites in India (now India+Pakistan+Bangladesh..). They couldnt agree with each other for many decades the best way to oppose an occupying force like the British.The British also brainwashed the two sides to their advantage against each other.Ofcourse, the Mughals were hurt that their project India had been derailed and ditto with say the Marathas.

The point being, frankly this was a matter of chance.Mountbatten and co could have come up with 1950 as the Independence day and might have said no to partition (so that they could enjoy and incite a civil war) and called the united country 'XHSTSR'.But that didnt happen because some elites in ML and Congress were in a hurry to get to power.History is so fickle.

Just think about it, if Pakistan was not carved out and was an autonomous region and Jinnah was President or PM and there were no riots.We wouldnt be fighting on this forum for Kashmir as we both would have enjoyed our Summer vacation in Dal lake.All this didnt happen, not just because of bad leadership but also as the civil society in our countries is so easy to incite.This is a key moment in history when both India and Pakistan common people must put their Govts under tremendous pressure to deliver peace and development.

The elites including Industry, Media and Politicians and Govt folks wont do so as they are not interested in a transformation. They are happy with little growth that can put money in their coffers or keep them in power. This could be a General in defacto control in Pakistan or a Babu in India.

Its only a people's movement that can force the elites to act and not cut deals like Nehru and Jinnahs to favor 'them'.The pressure can be built through things like 'wikileaks' or Pakindi leaks' or voting or agitation or boycott or whatever...things are unhinged right now and now is the time for the people to strike....back.

 

[Kambojaric]

The fact that the British ruled India for 3 centuries shows the moral bankruptcy of the elites in India (now India+Pakistan+Bangladesh..)

3 centuries? the regions encompassing todays Pakistan were under British rule for a max of 100 years. That is Sindh and Punjab. KP and Balochistan were taken over even later. In fact KP especially the tribes were never fully brought under British control.

Even in India it was a bit less than 2 centruies rule. Battle of Plassey 1757 eventually brought Bengal and Bihar under company rule. So basically 3 centuries is wrong.

 

[IND151]

Pakistan was only meant to be province within the federal state of India. It was used as a means to secure rights for the Muslims but when Nehru and Gandhi did not budge, Pakistan was created.

Otherwise, it was Jinnah who would have been the first leader of United India.

what about netaji?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This discussion has already been conducted in detail on a past thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/61165-two-nation-theory.html

Please read through the posts there and respond there.

Thread closed.

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 AM ----------

This discussion has already been conducted in detail on a past thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/61165-two-nation-theory.html

Please read through the posts there and respond there.

Thread closed.