More like sugarcoats.
1. Pakistan was NEVER created out of that premise. That is too simplistic and only patronises the political slogans that came up via individual usage. A good study of M.A Jinnah's speeches and his conversations on the matter will show that Pakistan was created to give Muslims the ability to decide their lifestyles by way of majority in decision. Be it in laws or economics. It had little to do with coexistence of the common and more to do with coexistence of the leadership of the two major religious communities throughout the history of the British Raj.
Actually it was. Jinnah consider hindus and muslims as two different nations. How can two nations live together?
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, -- Jinnah
Then he goes on to say how it will be destructive if hindu muslims have to live together in a nation
and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. -- Jinnah
Now let me take your argument (which in fact is a testament to same hindu-muslim incompatibility or non-coexistence ) -
So Jinnah wanted muslims to live under laws by majority i.e. muslims in decision because he feels that is right but had no qualms in having hindus to live under laws by muslim majority in decision ?
How can he accept hindu state accession which goes against his own ideology of what is right and what is wrong? If muslims should not live under majority hindu, why not the same favour extended to hindus? Why to take a contradictory position when it comes to hindus? Hypocrisy or a ruler mentality? Till I am ruling I am fine, if I am ruled I am not?
@Joe Shearer Can you see the dichotomy here, it makes me cringe.
One can ponder upon why the pakistani constitution do not allow any non muslim to become the head of state even when the state being democratic with muslim majority "in toto". So the cause of Pakistan was not just an effort to live by muslim majority decision, it has serious religious connotations to it which do not see non muslims as equal and worthy of ruling even if he is a citizen of one own country and elected by majority. Iqbal had it very clear when he called watan parasti a curse on religion(Islam).
Oscar, mind it, Jinnah was not alone. He used the insecurities of masses to build a nation but then Pakistan fall for the same insecurities later on. Once Pakistan became reality he tried to make it something which was not promised to masses - a convoluted diluted form of secularism with
Islam first. They make it
only Islam once he perished. There was always a difference in what he want and what he used including the political slogans what you have mentioned.
2. He was a lawyer/politician; and a good one at that. His intent was to gather as many princely states for both their land and financial capacity to show as support for the cause of Pakistan; and as a man who never left a debt unpaid, he had to raise the voice for these states regardless of the impossible nature of the situation.
What the correction here is?
Moreover once Indian Independence Act 47 was passed with basic territory defined for dominion of Pakistan and India, there was no need to gather support for the cause of Pakistan. Pakistan already became a reality. The only thing left was expansion of that territory by instrument of accession. Pakistan was not interested for Junagarh or Hyderabad for obvious reasons and thus did not carry forward resentment beyond a point.
3.Again, you are claiming to aim for a higher perception but are not demonstrating it.
” My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine for me is denial of God”. -- Mahatma Gandhi
And Indian constitution subsequently gave all the rights to a muslim what an average hindu can enjoy, in fact more as minority.
Shall I give the same example for facts as I did to
@Joe Shearer ?
His wit can grasp it, but can yours?
That I will leave on your wisdom to judge.
But if I have my own differences and do not agree to your line of thought, what does that make me - less witty?
For a lawyer, once he believes his client his right; the win must come by any proof and any presentation of the narrative for that proof to be presented to the Jury. In this case the Jury was both the British Rulers and the people that would form Pakistan.
Ahh exactly....more reasons for not taking his words before Partition as his true ideological values.
I completely agree here with you and applied the same context above to his actions.
Water is the ONLY reason for Kashmir, and since it is a foundation of life which makes it key to Pakistan's survival. Knowing the level of mistrust that exists along with historical antagonism and current hatred; Kashmir will continue to be an unsolved issue until only a final and terrible battle solves it. That is not a dogmatic, but simply a historical lesson based on what resources such as water have had people do.
And what will you say about those who think, if chosen, Kashmir should be allowed to go free? Essentially making them control the lifeline of two nuclear states? Will that not hit some very sensitive nerve of two regional powers?
But I do not agree to terrible battle part. I believe we will chose to exist with lessor resources than go extinct in an attempt to eat whole pie.
....yeah you can try when ever you want .hey quote me when you have been able to even scratch.
