Why Pakistan's Mohammed Ali Jinnah Was No Nelson Mandela: Kapil Komireddi

[Kompromat]

As of now there are predominantly six different languages in Pakistan, people who speak these languages, hail from different backgrounds and ethnicity(about dozen different ethnicity in Pakistan).

These people have different beliefs..some times in same religion shia-sunni..sometimes different religions Ahmadis, Christians, Sikhs Hindus.

So what do you say, these people are also packed together by force..need leaders like Jinnah to liberate them??

I knew you will bring this up as your "last defense". But you also know how many,of the above exist in India,even today?
I mentioned above that you cannot have a state with such level of multiculturalism and desire to have a hegemonic pro majority state like Nehru wanted. Jinnah was very much in favor of an undivided India and left for the UK disappointed when he was let down by Nehru and Gandhiji.

Pakistan is an Islamic state,bound together by 97% followers of the Prophet Mohammed [PBUH]. Our internal feuds are nothing new,you have your internal feuds too. We have an ideology that we created our state upon,and the subscribers to that ideology are growing by the day not just in Pakistan but all over the Muslim world. Your leaders described Pakistan as a "drama" and goras described us as "a temporary tent". We riddled the exact same thing in your face!

 

[Kazhugu]

stupid article....if the subcontinent had not been partitioned in 1947 by the leaders, it would have partitioned itself years later in a massive civil war....it was for the greater good of all that india was partitioned....i dont know why these stupid aman-ki-tamasha jholawala liberals still harp on partition....

i think kapil kommireddy's real heartburn is neither jinnah nor mandela...but modi...how he inserts his hatred of modi in a stealthy way inbetween by making him look like modern day jinnah....by scare mongering on how he is going to make india a hindu rashtra.....looks like the 2002 cottage industry is still alive and kicking.....

that’s what divided us, one people, into three nations

This sentence shows the authors delusions.

We are not and never were one people. Both Pakistan and India make up different ethnic groups, so no we are not the same

i think by people he meant muslims....it is indeed true that muslims in one united india have been divided into three nations....

 

[INDIC]

India always had never been a union except Orangzaib and Ashoka. Both of them achieved the so called union via force only to be fragmented. There is no such thing as "our ancestors" or "us the people". India was is and will remain a multi cultural place,the very argument of "us" is flawed.

Even multiethnic Pakistan was not a united territory except few dynasties. Even before British took these areas, there were numerous kingdoms.

And one would wonder "what" lead to that "miracle"

I believe that they succeeded in making Muslims believe the story of Hindu hagemony. I am glad Pakistan was created, we got stable India

 

[Kompromat]

Pakistan was created only on religion basis , not language background but Pakistan could not accomodate all the Muslims of British India. Jinnah was a Gujarati,you can't differentiate majority of Indians and Pakistanis on language basis.

I was talking about ancient Indian demographics to pre-partition.

If you look at the history, unified states were mostly established by the rule of the fist and gained acceptance later. So in 1947, it was the British Indian empire which was partitioned into 2.

That is a very reasonable view. Thanks

 

[Ganymede]

While i only read the parts that op highlighted, it has become quite evident to me that the author is trying to compare apples and oranges.A rather rudimentary example that pops in my head would that be of MLK and Malcolm X. While both strove for civil rights, their approach was poles apart. So while MLK had his followers, Malcolm had them too. If you listen to some Malcolm X's speeches, he may come off as a rather unsavory character but he was anything but. It's a manner of how one perceives things. His criticism of the white mindset wasn't specifically aimed towards the white populace but the racist mindset that viewed African Americans as second class citizens, similarly, when Jinnah dispatched that letter to that town in the Himalayas, he was criticizing the mindset that was on display during the time congress wielded power. The reason behind Jinnah's (a major propagator of Hindu Muslim unity) conviction that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist in the subcontinent was the congress party's predisposition to be leaning more so towards the Hindu populace while somewhat ignoring that of the Muslims as made evident by the 1938 Pirpur report. About what Dr Zakaria's comments about Mr. Jinnah, like Maulana Azad, he was part of the fabric of the congress party and its agenda and therefore viewed anything pertaining to the Pakistan movement with a cloak of bias.
It was not Jinnah that divided the people of the subcontinent, it was the people themselves coupled with certain individuals who let power get to their head and therefore sowed the seeds of discontent amongst the population and the rest as they say is history.

 

[INDIC]

stupid article....if the subcontinent had not been partitioned in 1947 by the leaders, it would have partitioned itself years later in a massive civil war....it was for the greater good of all that india was partitioned...
.

In that civil war we couldn't have protected East Punjab, West Bengal, Assam, Junagarh or Hyderabad nor we would have retained Kashmir and we may be having border of Pakistan ending at Delhi or Jamshedpur.

 

[Kazhugu]

Its not a very difficult questions, if one answers the following question honestly.

Who is a better human being?

A person who divides people because they are different or a person who unites people despite their differences??

im sorry but i have to disagree with you.....the people were divided for their own good.....a united subcontinent was never a viable proposition to begin with...and even if it was....with the benefit of hindsight i can say confidently that partition was for the good of india....so why are we intent on disproving partition or thinking of it has some bad thing when it has only meant good for us....infact right now...it is us indians who should be happy abt partition than pakistanis.......

 

[Pboy]

What matters is what we think.

WE.

WE PAKISTANIS

Not some grumpy indians.

 

[Kazhugu]

In that civil war we couldn't have protected East Punjab, West Bengal, Assam, Jungarh or Hyderabad nor we would have retained Kashmir and we may be having border Pakistan ending at Delhi or Jamshedpur.

interesting view point.....though i dont agree with junagadh, hyderabad or assam......they were always hindu majority and would have fought back.....but yeah....east punjab, west bengal would have been lost......these pinko liberals sitting in london ought be given one tight smack on their butt for even suggesting these things......

but then as i said....the real focus of the article, as far as i see, is on disparaging modi as modern day jinnah intent on dividing india....it has been couched in one whole long winded article on partition...

What matters is what we think.

WE.

WE PAKISTANIS

Not some grumpy indians.

look no one calls u indians...you also dont call yourself one...lets collectively ignore these pinko liberals who are so far removed from reality as earth is from mars.....

 

[Pboy]

No one knows how a united India would have turned out to be...

Could have been a nightmare... Or a dream?

However I reckon both countries has failed with all the hate both have for each other..

 

[Kazhugu]

Jinnah never advocated partition from the start, he was forced to make that choice in 1946 due to inflexibility of nehru and congress, who were refusing to give autonomy to muslim majority regions...

autonomy for muslim majority regions was never a practical idea...autonomy is practical when the population who enjoys autonomy is somewhat less when compared to over all population...but in this case....i guess hindus and muslims were somewhere in the ratio of 60%-65% to 40%-35%....hence it was for the good of all we separated.....

had india been an united country the autonomous regions might want to engage in jihad wiht soviet while the hindu maj provinces would not.....the hindu maj provinces might want to establish relations with israel but muslim areas wont.....that proposal was simply unworkable....and as i said we would have had a massive civil war.....thank god we separated....

 

[Kompromat]

Who's domination

Hindu domination which is still clear and persistent in your parliament. .. If this is not hindu domination than i don't know what domination means in your dictionary. This is the domination Jinnah foresaw and wanted to opt out. [Thankfully]

independence from whom..

Majority hindu rule with hinduvta picking up pace on daily basis. A mass murderer and a terrorist being hailed as a hero and as the potential candidate for the next prime minister. - Those Indian muslims who chose to be dominated are paying the price.

As far as I know British were already giving India their independence.

They were not giving, they were forced to give up. Thanks to Hitler,for creating a situation for us to exploit,otherwise Churchill was touting for the "Crown of Britannia lasting for a 1000 years".

Exploiting and expanding a communal divide is still exploitation, does not become self determination.

Self determination is an inherent right, we didn't want it to be "determined" by the majority.

Your problems have nothing to do with us.. everything to do with you and the mentality on which your nation created.

So who invites you to poke your nose in our matters and who we are?

It has some how stuck in

..and you will have to live with it.

whereas we chose to stay united despite being diverse.

Chose????? What? your constitution curbs the right to succession which means you "choose" to live united??... India even today is a multicultural federation ready to be fragmented if it wasn't being held together by hatred for Pakistan and military force.

You chose divide people despite being a homogeneous group...first on the basis of religion(1947), then on the basis of language and ethnicity(1971) and now on basis of sect and region.

Bangladesh was divided by our politicians and a military defeat after being outnumbered by 1 to 24. However,even there the ideology still lives and thrives.

 

[Kazhugu]

Yes it is Baqarah Eid the correct form.

lol its embarassing that a hindu has to teach these mussalmans about their festival.....

its not baqarah eid or anything..but eid-al-adha or bakr-eid.

and if you want to follow the tradition as closely as possible as your ibrahim prophet u ought to sacrifice a sheep and not cow or camel...because that is what he sacrificed in place of ishmael......thanks..

 

[INDIC]

im sorry but i have to disagree with you.....the people were divided for their own good.....a united subcontinent was never a viable proposition to begin with...and even if it was....with the benefit of hindsight i can say confidently that partition was for the good of india....so why are we intent on disproving partition or thinking of it has some bad thing when it has only meant good for us....infact right now...it is us indians who should be happy abt partition than pakistanis.......

I was watching a movie where V K Krishna Menon and Sardar Patel were discussing to accept Partition to prevent whole of Punjab and Whole of Bengal into Pakistan and Delhi becoming indo-Pak border. Jinnah initially never wanted to give up whole of Bengal, Punjab and Assam.

 

[RangerPK]

lol its embarassing that a hindu has to teach these mussalmans about their festival.....

its not baqarah eid or anything..but eid-al-adha or bakr-eid.

and if you want to follow the tradition as closely as possible as your ibrahim prophet u ought to sacrifice a sheep and not cow or camel...because that is what he sacrificed in place of isaac......thanks..

In place of Ismail.