The second coming of a Quaid

[Captain03]

awesome post
i had such feelings for jinnah and am very happy there are people out there that think the same
yes we need another good leader but we need every pakistani to do his/her part
every rich pakistani to not save their wealth but to spend it on their own nation
dont worry my friend allah is with us and we will have a leader like that soon =]

 

[muse]

The article below adds an interesting theoretical persepective and may add to our discussion and may help clarify issues such as "new history" for both Indians and Pakistanis and perhaps we may be less emphatic and acknowledge, that while history is those facts we choose to recollect, it is also much more:


In defence of history
Eric Hobsbawm

History needs to be defended against those who deny its capacity to help us understand the world, and because new developments in the sciences have transformed the historiographical agenda.

Methodologically, the major negative development has been the construction of a set of barriers between what happened in history and our capacity to observe and understand it. It is denied that there is any reality that is objectively there and not constructed by the observer for different and changing purposes. It is claimed that we can never penetrate beyond the limitations of language.

Meanwhile, less theoretically minded historians argue that the course of the past is too contingent for causal explanation, because the options in history are endless. Pretty well anything could happen or might have happened. Implicitly, these are arguments against any science. I won’t bother about the more trivial attempts to return to the past: the attempt to hand back its course to high political or military decision-makers, or to the omnipotence of ideas or “values”, or to reduce historical scholarship to the search for empathy with the past.

The major immediate political danger to historiography today is “anti-universalism” or “my truth is as valid as yours, whatever the evidence”. This appeals to various forms of identity group history, for which the central issue of history is not what happened, but how it concerns the members of a particular group. What is important to this kind of history is not rational explanation but “meaning”, not what happened but what members of a collective group defining itself against outsiders — religious, ethnic, national, by gender, or lifestyle — feel about it.

The past 30 years have been a golden age for the mass invention of emotionally skewed historical untruths and myths. Some of them are a public danger: I am thinking of countries like India under the BJP, the US, Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy, not to mention many of the new nationalisms, with or without fundamentalist religious reinforcement.

This produces endless claptrap on the fringes of nationalist, feminist, gay, black and other in-group histories, but it has also stimulated interesting new historical developments in cultural studies, such as what has been called the “memory boom” in history.

It is time to re-establish the coalition of those who believe in history as a rational inquiry into the course of human transformations, against those who distort history for political purposes — and more generally, against relativists and postmodernists who deny this possibility. Since some of the latter see themselves as being on the left, this may split historians in politically unexpected ways.

The Marxist approach is a necessary component of this reconstruction of the front of reason. While postmodernists have denied the possibility of historical understanding, developments in the natural sciences have put an evolutionary history of humanity firmly back on the agenda.

Firstly, DNA analysis has established a firmer chronology of the spread of the species from its original African origin throughout the world, before the appearance of written sources. This has both established the astonishing brevity of human history and eliminated the reductionist solution of neo-Darwinian socio-biology.

The changes in human life in past 10,000 years, let alone the past 10 generations, are too great to be explained by a wholly Darwinian mechanism of evolution via genes. They amount to the accelerating inheritance of acquired characteristics by cultural and not genetic mechanisms.

In short, the DNA revolution calls for a specific, historical, method of studying the evolution of the human species. It also provides us with a rational framework for a world history. History is the continuance of the biological evolution of homo sapiens by other means.

Secondly, the new evolutionary biology eliminates the distinction between history and the natural sciences and bypasses the bogus debates on whether history is or is not a science.

Thirdly, it returns us to the basic approach to human evolution adopted by prehistorians, which is to study the modes of interaction between our species and its environment and its growing control over it. That means asking the questions that Marx asked. “Modes of production”, based on major innovations in productive technology, in communications, and in social organisation — but also in military power — have been central to human evolution. These innovations, as Marx was aware, did not and do not make themselves. Material and cultural forces and relations of production are not separable. They are the activities of men and women in historical situations not of their making, acting and taking decisions, but not in a vacuum.

However, the new perspectives on history should also return us to that essential, if never quite realisable, objective of those who study the past: “total history”. Not a “history of everything”, but history as an indivisible web in which all human activities are interconnected. Marxists are not the only ones to have had this aim, but they have been its most persistent pursuers.

Not the least of the problems for which the perspective of history as interaction is essential, is one that is crucial for the understanding of the historic evolution of homo sapiens. It is the conflict between the forces making for the transformation of homo sapiens from neolithic to nuclear humanity and the forces whose aim is the maintenance of unchanging reproduction and stability in human social environments. For most of history, the forces inhibiting change have usually effectively counteracted open-ended change.

Today this balance has been decisively tilted in one direction. And the disequilibrium is almost certainly beyond the ability of human social and political institutions to control. Perhaps Marxist historians, who have had occasion to reflect on the unintended and unwanted consequences of human collective projects in the 20th century, can at least help us understand how this came about.

Eric Hobsbawm is president of Birkbeck College at the University of London and Professor Emeritus at the New School for Social Research in New York. He has been described as one of the greatest living historians of the world. He is the author of several books on modern history and historiography. This is an edited extract from his speech to the British Academy Colloquium on Marxist historiography, first published in Le Monde Diplomatique

 

[s90]

I accept Pakistan's existence, but I cannot forget the fact that my land was partitioned because somebody wanted a Disneyland.

You asked for it.

 

[Always Neutral]

awesome post
dont worry my friend allah is with us and we will have a leader like that soon =]

Tell that to the US and IMF.

Regards

 

[niaz]

Regret to say that the article in the Frontier post has a journalistic spin. The words have been misrepresented and twisted into a meaning totally different from what the Quaid intended.

Our founder stood first and foremost for the rule of law, he was against bribery, blackmarket and nepotism. All these curses are present in today's with 100 fold increase than what we had in 1947. He was also for equal rights for all citizens of Pakistan regardless of creed, color or race.

These fact are conveniently ignored, instead bigoted authors change the message of the Quaid to suit their purpose. For the benefit of the honourable members, I am quoting the speech verbatim. Please read it and judge for yourselves as to how hypocrites such as Dr Ghayur Ayub misrepresent the essence of what Quaid - e - Azam actually said.

Quote

Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan
August 11, 1947

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!

I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me - the greatest honour that is possible to confer - by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of every one of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India's constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads:

I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency's capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:
On the occasion of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Dawn, Independence Day Supplement, August 14, 1999.
Transcribed from printed copy by Shehzaad Nakhoda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links: Constitution of Pakistan | Legislation | Welcome to pakistani.org

Unquote

 

[vish]

That is in fact the skewed and distorted vision of Jinnah that RR suggested you educate yourself beyond. Jinnah was aware of his failing health, and that he would not last long, and he could have at that point given up on the cause of Pakistan - that he did not only indicates that his belief in the ideals and reasons behind Pakistan was altruistic.

I would in fact argue that even if the fears of 'Hindu Domination' were 'ill founded', the choice of making the case for a nation called Pakistan was still the right of the peoples who would be included in that nation. If the contemporary Indian Republic could not bear to stay united under the British flag, then why shouldn't other peoples inhabiting South Asia also not seek their own destiny in a new nation?


And that is a failure of the people, and certain rabid groups and individuals, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim.

That this took place in an atmosphere where, especially in Pakistan, there was limited government and government resources and infrastructure to contain the violence only exacerbate the issue - so in that sense TE is correct, the 'haphazard manner' of the partition of the colony did contribute to the violence and hostility.

If Jinnah would have disclosed his cancer, the INC would have made him the PM of a united India. This would have severely weakened his aspirations. As I said earlier, Jinnah simply wanted his own country; he was not ready to be second fiddle to anybody, be it Gandhi or Nehru.

Your argument that would-be residents of Pakistan had rights on Pakistan is again flawed. Partition was imposed on these would-be Pakistanis. No body would want their centuries old way of life to be thrown out the window, as what happened to the families who moved.

People assume that the 1946 elections spoke the people's verdict; they did not. Jinnah literally bought (money or power) many local politicians from Bengal's Krishak Praja Party (KPP).

There is a reason why partition was haphazard: it wasn't a grass-roots movement. If it would have been, people who would have started moving long back and not just after the decision was taken. Partition was a top-to-bottom movement. Initial riots were staged and then the fire spread as people saw the "inevitable"; pretty soon, it became a free for all tribal orgy where one could keep what one looted or raped.

There was no other way to partition the country other than the haphazard approach; Jinnah needed momentum to pull it off, and he exercised just that.

Also, I doubt anybody saw the hatred rise to such proportions as it did. This again confirms one thing: people were not okay with what was happening and hence the need to avenge as much as possible.

 

[vish]

Vish,
You appear to be young man, it is natural to feel the way you do. Sons & brothers cannot live off the same family house & kitchen forever. When families grow sometimes seperation is better to ensure harmony & family ties. Unfortunately the haphazard manner of seperation is the bane in our case. Not that there is a soloution/ manner to undo or rectify it now. The ans is to accept & move on.

Brothers rarely have probs left to themselves, it is only when ladies ( wives) come into the frame do things start to slip. In our case , even at the risk of starting a feud, I'd like to compare our respective religions with our wives, we must love, respect & cherish them but keep them in the right place & perspective ( without chauvanisitc insinuations).

My view is that the God we pray to,the food we eat, the clothes we wear,the upbringing we give our children & the lifestyle we keep are very personal issues. We can neither be judgemental on others on these nor can we impose our styles on others.

Sir,
Indeed I'm a young lad, and unmarried at that.

Further, I think you have mistook my assertions; I'm not denying the existence of any country (be it Pakistan or Bangladesh), I'm simply stating that the partition of India was imposed on the land by a select bunch of people who were driven by their own personal agendas. I'm all for peace and accepting the status quo, and firmly believe (as you do) that borders should not be redrawn.

 

[vish]

You asked for it.

Really? How?

By not appeasing somebody's ego?

 

[donrahul]

Everybody says, that India was never a country with defined boundaries! how do u define a country? Let me list you a list of countries.. Let me know if they have been known in the past, in the same sense as now...

USA - Established by Settlers from various parts of the Old World and then broke away to create a Union.
Mexico
Canada
Australia
France - Home of Frankish and germanic Tribes.
Italy - Hotch potch of City states..
Germany - Group of Germanic city-states and small empires descending from the Holy Roman Empire..
Russia - the formal russian empire was established in the 16th-17th Century, Till then i think it was called Kingdom of Muscovy or something like that..
When we accept all these, What is the problem in accepting India as a country??

 

[Ali.009]

Everybody says, that India was never a country with defined boundaries! how do u define a country? Let me list you a list of countries.. Let me know if they have been known in the past, in the same sense as now...

USA - Established by Settlers from various parts of the Old World and then broke away to create a Union.
Mexico
Canada
Australia
France - Home of Frankish and germanic Tribes.
Italy - Hotch potch of City states..
Germany - Group of Germanic city-states and small empires descending from the Holy Roman Empire..
Russia - the formal russian empire was established in the 16th-17th Century, Till then i think it was called Kingdom of Muscovy or something like that..
When we accept all these, What is the problem in accepting India as a country??

Indian was never a single country, always divided between various raja's. It wouldnt even be a single country now if the fascists leaders hadnt annexed the states of hyderabad and junaghar to join 'india' by force. Your country is build on weak base - by forcing, everyone wants to sperate themselves from fake indian pride. And they will sooner or later.

And on the other hand, you cant even stick to the topic of the thread?

 

[cmohan]

Indian was never a single country, always divided between various raja's. It wouldnt even be a single country now if the fascists leaders hadnt annexed the states of hyderabad and junaghar to join 'india' by force. Your country is build on weak base - by forcing, everyone wants to sperate themselves from fake indian pride. And they will sooner or later.

And on the other hand, you cant even stick to the topic of the thread?

Mr. Ali.009 Sir,

Pardon my ignorance, can you name one country which was ruled by only one raja (i mean one clan or dynasty) throughout their history.

Sorry to veer off the topic.

 

[donrahul]

Indian was never a single country, always divided between various raja's. It wouldnt even be a single country now if the fascists leaders hadnt annexed the states of hyderabad and junaghar to join 'india' by force. Your country is build on weak base - by forcing, everyone wants to sperate themselves from fake indian pride. And they will sooner or later.

And on the other hand, you cant even stick to the topic of the thread?

Read the thread properly and you will find everywhere in this thread and in this forum for that matter, that there are people who keep insisting that India never existed before 1947 and my reply was to them and by the way, You never made a credible effort to counter my point..