# A Big Secret of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah



## SecularNationalist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nizamuddin

I don't agree


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

feedermen said:


> Do people also know that Jinnah ate pork and drank alcohol...


Yeah we know it. Quaid was secular but this country was hijacked by extremists.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GURU DUTT

Peaceful Civilian said:


> Yeah we know it. Quaid was secular but this country was hijacked by extremists.


ever wonderred how and why ?


----------



## pak-marine

feedermen said:


> Do people also know that Jinnah ate pork and drank alcohol...



Alcohal is widely sold and consumed in Pakistan also many Non residents drink like a fish so whats the big deal with that .. As for pork jinnah was gujrati these people have less tendency towards eating meat so i have to rubbish this one


----------



## pakdefender

The man gave up everything he had for Pakistan , there is no doubt about , he could have gone for treatment anywhere in Britain but he valued Pakistan more than his life

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## doppelganger

I have read somewhere that his wife also suffered from TB, and was being treated for it alone in a sanitarium in Paris (I think) and that he did not visit her even once while she was there?


----------



## nForce

Peaceful Civilian said:


> Yeah we know it. Quaid was secular but this country was hijacked by extremists.


Funny thing. If Jinnah was secular, he wanted a secular country too, then why on Earth people needed partition in first place ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

doppelganger said:


> I have read somewhere that his wife also suffered from TB, and was being treated for it alone in a sanitarium in Paris (I think) and that he did not visit her even once while she was there?


 Jinnah had a daughter too but could not give much time to his wife and daughter due to his busy life. His wife was not glad to see that and went to her mother in angered where she felt ill and died. Jinnah was not told of this by her mother in law. Later his daughter was married to some christian by his mother in law.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## doppelganger

nForce said:


> Funny thing. If Jinnah was secular, he wanted a secular country too, then why on Earth people needed partition in first place ?



I also never understood this "Jinnah was secular" thing.



Ahmad Sajjad Paracha said:


> Jinnah had a daughter too but could not give much time to his wife and daughter due to his busy life. His wife was not glad to see that and went to her mother in angered where she felt ill and died. Jinnah was not told of this by her mother in law. Later his daughter was married to some christian by his mother in law.



Jinnah knew his wife was undergoing treatment. He wrote love letters to her while she was there.


----------



## user1

Jinnah *stopped* consuming alcohol during the last years of his life. The banquet given to Viceroy of India (Mountbatten) in Karachi was alcohol free highlighting the Islamic character of the new state.

Jinnah* never* consumed pork; it was a piece of propaganda spread by MC Chagla who held a personal grudge against Jinnah.

Akbar S. Ahmed writes in his book - *Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity*:

The answer may well come from Muslim history. Babar, the Mughal emperor, provides an interesting example of a Muslim’s attitude to drink. Famous in history as a tippler, he was also a poet, autobiographer, warrior and a family man. But at a critical point of his career, when the fate of India was to be decided through a battle, he decided to make a personal sacrifice. He promised God that he would give up drink on the eve of the battle. He went on to win India. Perhaps something similar happened to Jinnah. *Several sources indicate that towards the end of his life he had given up drink.*

In August 1995 in Cambridge, Yahya Bakhtiar recalled that to the best of his knowledge Jinnah stopped drinking in his final years, and that Iqbal had done the same —that is, in spite of doctor’s orders, they had ‘gone Muslim’. S.S.Pirzada confirms this: ‘It is on record that during his last illness when his physician advised him to take a little brandy, “as a medicine”, he refused.* “You want me to take it [alcohol] in the last days of my life, I would not do that,”* he said’ (interview of S.S.Pirzada by M.H.Faruqi, Impact International, August 1995:19).

Pirzada also rejects the often repeated story of Jinnah eating ham sandwiches. As Jinnah’s honorary secretary *between 1941 and 1944, he never saw him eat forbidden flesh.* However weak the evidence, the most widely read works on Pakistan—by Christina Lamb and Emma Duncan, for example—begin their accounts with a predictable catalogue of Jinnah’s dietary habits.

Pirzada put the matter in perspective: ‘Still there is this story about ham sandwiches which is being given currency in Pakistan now’ (Pirzada interview, ibid.). ‘The only source for this appears to be* M.C.Chagla*’s book Roses in December…. After independence, he rose to become a* Minister* in the* Indian Government* and a * virulent anti-Pakistani*.’ Pirzada explained Chagla’s motivation as the need for *revenge*: Chagla had been both an honorary secretary to Jinnah in the 1920s and a secretary of the Muslim League, but when he welcomed the Nehru Report in 1928, which Jinnah opposed, *Jinnah had him removed*. When partition came in 1947 Chagla remained on in India, rising to the post of* Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court *and eventually becoming ambassador to the USA and Foreign Minister of India. *Chagla needed to show loyalty to India and also wished to project Jinnah as ‘secular’ and a flawed Muslim.*

According to Chagla’s story (quoted in Wolpert 1984:78–9), Ruttie offered ham sandwiches to Jinnah in the middle of a political campaign. If this were true it would mean that* Ruttie was mentally retarded*, that she had no idea about her culture and the sensibilities of her society. In fact she was an intelligent, supportive wife. Having become a Muslim after her marriage, she would have particularly appreciated the difference between what was forbidden and what was not. *The last thing she would have done would be to embarrass her husband and damage his political career*. As much for religious as for cultural reasons, she would certainly not have brought her husband ham sandwiches in the middle of a political campaign, even if she had wanted him to eat them in the first place. It is a silly story.

When I asked* Dina Wadia* in New York whether Chagla’s story had any factual basis, she recalled that over sixty years ago they were travelling by train to a hill station when* ham sandwiches* were brought with the food as part of the menu. *Her father had them sent away. *(She also expressed her irritation about Pakistanis who only seemed to be interested in whether Jinnah ate ham and drank whisky.)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

nForce said:


> Funny thing. If Jinnah was secular, he wanted a secular country too, then why on Earth people needed partition in first place ?


Look his personal life...Tell me he was secular or not . Is that things allowed in Islam..
Even now, Alcohal is banned here. If he would have been alive, .How jinnah arrange daru parties here.


----------



## third eye

nizamuddin said:


> I don't agree


Dogs, Whiskey, champagne and Dina! The Real Quaid we hide behind a Sherwani! The real Deedawar - by iqbal.latif - Newsvine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

nForce said:


> Funny thing. If Jinnah was secular, he wanted a secular country too, then why on Earth people needed partition in first place ?



Because he realized the fact that the Muslim community in the British Raj was at a disadvantage in terms of numbers, education, employment etc. Jinnah was a secularist but that does not mean that he did not identify himself as a Muslim or hold dear the interests of the Muslim community in South Asia.

To give you a more recent example look at Bosnia post Yugoslavia break up. The Orthodox Serbs, Muslim Bosniaks and Catholic Croats all fought for the interests of their community without this necessarily meaning that they were respectively advocating Serb/Muslim/Catholic only states. The people of this region were and still are largely secular but saw their religion as part of their identify and as such strongly identified with members of their religious community and the interests of this religious community.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nForce

Peaceful Civilian said:


> Look his personal life...Tell me he was secular or not . Is that things allowed in Islam..
> Even now, Alcohal is banned here. If he would have been alive, .How jinnah arrange daru parties here.


Aww..don't tell me you can't do daru parties there.


----------



## nForce

Bamxa said:


> *Because he realized the fact that the Muslim community in the British Raj was at a disadvantage in terms of numbers, education, employment* etc. Jinnah was a secularist but that does not mean that he did not identify himself as a Muslim or hold dear the interests of the Muslim community in South Asia.


Yes, you are correct on that. This issue has been described in detail in rather sarcastic manner by eminent journalist, Babar Ayaz, in his book, _What's Wrong with Pakistan_, where he discusses the origin of Two-Nation theory.

The thing is we usually close the chapter by saying, "Ohh the Muslim community was at disadvantage and hence a new nation was required etc etc." There is a little more than that.

Back in 1905 when Bengal was being divided by Lord Curzon or in 1919 or in 1935 when the Second Govt. of India/Burma Act was being passed, the common people had little idea what was actually going on, Hindu-Muslim alike. So, they followed and did what there leaders told them to do.

As India under the British rule moved more towards systematic self-rule or democracy through Minto-Morley reforms which gave way to Government of India Act in 1919, the Muslim elites started demanding more and more share in the govt. Now the demand was on communal basis as they had no other. Keep in mind that these elites are not the typical Muslims, but the land lords or those high up in the society or those belonging to elite families. They always had this grudge against the British as it is the British who deposed them off their colonial rule.

If there is something that a powerful person hates the most, it is loosing his power and authority. That's exactly what happened. The Muslim elites were gradually starting to realize that they are being left behind by the Hindu majority who were once there subjects.
The seed of two-nation-theory was thus already there, it existed as a thought, albeit a radical one. But it needed a trigger and that was the loss of Muslim League in 1937 elections. There is a very famous quote by journalist M.J. Akbar on this. He says, "What does a lawyer do when he starts loosing the case ? Well, he changes the story". That's exactly what Jinnah did. He changed the narrative from a separate state for Muslims to a separate land for the pure, to safe-guard Islam. Thus, upon creation, Pakistan became the only country in the World, that was created for Islam.

And he was supported by the Muslim elites, the feudal lords and the upper sections of the Muslim society who saw Pakistan as another way to safeguard their personal interests without the necessity to compete. And that is also another reason for long-standing feudal lords and slow land-reforms, the Bhutto, Zardari Sharifs, lots are there.

Where does the common Muslim stand ? Well, just like a common Hindu, he did not have much of a say anyhow, neither did it matter to those who were deciding the fate of India. So, it will be a bit wrong to say the entire Muslim community made the decision, it was made by a handful of people rather. And these handful people had more interest in personal agenda than Muslim community.




> To give you a more recent example look at Bosnia post Yugoslavia break up. The Orthodox Serbs, Muslim Bosniaks and Catholic Croats all fought for the interests of their community without this necessarily meaning that they were respectively advocating Serb/Muslim/Catholic only states. The people of this region were and still are largely secular but saw their religion as part of their identify and as such strongly identified with members of their religious community and the interests of this religious community.



There are no examples so far a history is concerned. Each and every case is unique in it's own way. We will talk about Bosnia/Yugoslavia or my personal favourite, Marshal Tito, some other day in some other thread.


----------



## SecularNationalist

nForce said:


> Funny thing. If Jinnah was secular, he wanted a secular country too, then why on Earth people needed partition in first place ?


Because history has proved that due to plenty of religious differences hindus and muslims cannot exist in peace together .Also after looking at the current state of india we must relaize MA jinnah did us a tremendous amount of favor by fighting for a separate state.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nForce

SecularNationalist said:


> Because history has proved that due to plenty of religious differences hindus and muslims cannot exist in peace together .Also after looking at the current state of india we must relaize MA jinnah did us a tremendous amount of favor by fighting for a separate state.



Well, before I start, let me assert that I don't advocate reunification of India and Pakistan for I firmly believe that we should remain as separate nations.

Now...

If Pakistan is the solution where Muslims can live peacefully, then why is it that more Muslims get killed due to violence in Pakistan everyday than rest of the Muslim World put together ? Looking at it, one might think that Muslims can't live with Muslims, forget Hindus. So, what's the catch ?

If separate Muslim homeland was the answer, then whose answer was it ? Most of the political works came from East Bengal and it was East Bengal only which broke away from the separate Muslim land only 24 years later to create a separate country for themselves and this time they created a _secular_ one. Ever wondered why ? If that is not the supreme example of failure of Jinnah's idea then what is ?


----------



## Imran Khan

great life he live i am proud of him


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

doppelganger said:


> I also never understood this "Jinnah was secular" thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Jinnah knew his wife was undergoing treatment. He wrote love letters to her while she was there.


Lolx


----------



## SecularNationalist

nForce said:


> Well, before I start, let me assert that I don't advocate reunification of India and Pakistan for I firmly believe that we should remain as separate nations.
> 
> Now...
> 
> If Pakistan is the solution where Muslims can live peacefully, then why is it that more Muslims get killed due to violence in Pakistan everyday than rest of the Muslim World put together ? Looking at it, one might think that Muslims can't live with Muslims, forget Hindus. So, what's the catch ?
> 
> If separate Muslim homeland was the answer, then whose answer was it ? Most of the political works came from East Bengal and it was East Bengal only which broke away from the separate Muslim land only 24 years later to create a separate country for themselves and this time they created a _secular_ one. Ever wondered why ? If that is not the supreme example of failure of Jinnah's idea then what is ?


Well i was not asking either for a reunification of india pakistan.
More muslims getting killed in pakistan than the rest of the world? Oh really ? Great job pulling a wrong statement out of your rear end. Muslims these days have their problems i agree but not living with hindus is one of the solution to a problem. Fights between hindus and muslims is not the only problem there are plenty of other problems too for those who chosen to live under the so called umbrella of united india.And those problems are for other religions as well not just islam because you people still crave for the mauryan empire which was existed in 322–185 BCE.
That east pakistan turning into a bangladesh was the result of our attitude towards bengalis and the conspiracy and propaganda of you people ,that whole tragedy cannot be connected with the ideology of MA jinnah.Yes he opted for a secular muslim majority state and he himself was a secular but unfortunately he passed away too early and the country was hijacked by people like zia ul haq.
Pakistan was meant to be a secular state but a state completely separated from the majority hindu india.
Finally after looking at the quality of your comments and anti jinnah rhetoric i can see from which indian class you are coming from and for whom you had voted in the may 2013 elections.


----------



## Force-India

SecularNationalist said:


>



Propaganda to hide murder by making up secret disease and saying how Pakistan may not have came into existence if he had not kept it secret. Foolish.



SecularNationalist said:


> Because history has proved that due to plenty of religious differences hindus and muslims cannot exist in peace together .Also after looking at the current state of india we must relaize MA jinnah did us a tremendous amount of favor by fighting for a separate state.



Can't agree more



SecularNationalist said:


> Well i was not asking either for a reunification of india pakistan.
> More muslims getting killed in pakistan than the rest of the world? Oh really ? Great job pulling a wrong statement out of your rear end. Muslims these days have their problems i agree but not living with hindus is one of the solution to a problem. Fights between hindus and muslims is not the only problem there are plenty of other problems too for those who chosen to live under the so called umbrella of united india.And those problems are for other religions as well not just islam because you people still crave for the mauryan empire which was existed in 322–185 BCE.
> That east pakistan turning into a bangladesh was the result of our attitude towards bengalis and the conspiracy and propaganda of you people ,that whole tragedy cannot be connected with the ideology of MA jinnah.Yes he opted for a secular muslim majority state and he himself was a secular but unfortunately he passed away too early and the country was hijacked by people like zia ul haq.
> Pakistan was meant to be a secular state but a state completely separated from the majority hindu india.
> Finally after looking at the quality of your comments and anti jinnah rhetoric i can see from which indian class you are coming from and for whom you had voted in the may 2013 elections.



Although you are filled with harted for Hindus


----------



## Adecypher

*Salute to the Father of the Nation*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nForce

SecularNationalist said:


> Well i was not asking either for a reunification of india pakistan.
> More muslims getting killed in pakistan than the rest of the world? Oh really ? Great job pulling a wrong statement out of your rear end. Muslims these days have their problems i agree but not living with hindus is one of the solution to a problem. Fights between hindus and muslims is not the only problem there are plenty of other problems too for those who chosen to live under the so called umbrella of united india.


What are these problems that you are talking about ? Sectarian violence ? Again, more people die in Pakistan due to that in comparison to India, in spite of the fact that Pakistan's population is 10 times less than that of India. While such cases of violence has reduced in India over the years owing to awareness, education and good governance in India, it has increased in Pakistan over the years. So, is religious segregation the answer ?

The population of Muslims in India is a sizable one making India the country with largest Muslim population in the World and largest Hindu population also at the very same time. By your logic, India should be exploding every other day. Do you see that happening ?

The percentage of Muslim population in India has increased from 14.6% to 18.4% while that of Hindus in Pakistan has reduced to 0.1%. That's the outcome of Jinnah's policy, irrespective of what he wanted.

Even are people really sure about what he wanted ? If he wanted a secular nation, then why Muslim majority ? As I have said in one of my previous posts in this thread, what he wanted is to win. When Muslim League lost elections in 1937, he changed the narrative from a separate homeland for Muslims to a separate land for Islam. He wanted to win and was willing to pay or make others pay any cost that was necessary. The people of India paid an immediate cost in terms of sectarian violence and now we stand bleeding each other everyday. Yes, that's the cost people of South Asia are paying while more Muslims live in India than in Pakistan today. That makes Jinnah's attempt futile, meaningless.




> And those problems are for other religions as well not just islam because you people still crave for the mauryan empire which was existed in 322–185 BCE.


I believe you missed the very first line of my previous post. No, I or those who think alike, don't want that. For I believe it's two late and dangerous and counter-productive.
After all, why do we want to unite with a nation with little natural resources, dwindling economy having a large section of society radicalized, gripped in violence ? The return on investment is not good. We will create more problems for ourselves than what we already have.



> That east pakistan turning into a bangladesh was the result of our attitude towards bengalis and the conspiracy and propaganda of you people ,that whole tragedy cannot be connected with the ideology of MA jinnah.Yes he opted for a secular muslim majority state and he himself was a secular but unfortunately he passed away too early and the country was hijacked by people like zia ul haq.



If your internal bonding is so feeble that it breaks from outside then it is meant to be broken, be it today or tomorrow.
The catch here is (if you still can't see it) language and culture are far more important and stronger binding factor than religion. One tries to attack that and there are bound to be severe repercussions.

When Bangladesh was created, *it consisted of a little more than half the population of undivided Pakistan*.
That again, shatters Jinnah's theory that religion can be the basis of nation building, as more than half the population of undivided Pakistan went on to create a secular nation on the basis of a common language and culture and not religion.

Now, coming to Zia-ul-Haq. One creates a nation on the basis of religion and it is obvious religion will be hyped over there. Any kind of patriotism has to be linked with that religion only. Now that's a perfect recipe to alienate the non-believers but may also create problems for the believers in that religion. Zia is one of the many, Pakistan was declared Islamic Republic in 1956, not even 10 years had passed after it's creation. If Jinnah could not foresee that, then, with all due respect, he was a fool.



> Pakistan was meant to be a secular state but a state completely separated from the majority hindu india.
> Finally after looking at the quality of your comments and anti jinnah rhetoric i can see from which indian class you are coming from and for whom you had voted in the may 2013 elections.



Pakistan was never meant to be a secular state. How does one create a whole country on the basis of a single religion and then call it secular ?


----------



## Thorough Pro

post reported.



feedermen said:


> Do people also know that Jinnah ate pork and drank alcohol...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SecularNationalist

nForce said:


> What are these problems that you are talking about ? Sectarian violence ? Again, more people die in Pakistan due to that in comparison to India, in spite of the fact that Pakistan's population is 10 times less than that of India. While such cases of violence has reduced in India over the years owing to awareness, education and good governance in India, it has increased in Pakistan over the years. So, is religious segregation the answer ?
> 
> The population of Muslims in India is a sizable one making India the country with largest Muslim population in the World and largest Hindu population also at the very same time. By your logic, India should be exploding every other day. Do you see that happening ?
> 
> The percentage of Muslim population in India has increased from 14.6% to 18.4% while that of Hindus in Pakistan has reduced to 0.1%. That's the outcome of Jinnah's policy, irrespective of what he wanted.
> 
> Even are people really sure about what he wanted ? If he wanted a secular nation, then why Muslim majority ? As I have said in one of my previous posts in this thread, what he wanted is to win. When Muslim League lost elections in 1937, he changed the narrative from a separate homeland for Muslims to a separate land for Islam. He wanted to win and was willing to pay or make others pay any cost that was necessary. The people of India paid an immediate cost in terms of sectarian violence and now we stand bleeding each other everyday. Yes, that's the cost people of South Asia are paying while more Muslims live in India than in Pakistan today. That makes Jinnah's attempt futile, meaningless.


Rather than answering any of my question you are just using your same bull crap again and again..
After Gujarat and Kashmir genocide india should think thrice before herself secular. 
Since 1947 other than hindus every other religion is suffering from hindu terrorism and that,s where MR jinnah was so far sighted he see it coming and fought for pakistan. Look at your pitiful current state before bragging about the economy,governance and education etc.Rapes,starvation,extreme poverty ,no toilets etc.No one who qualify as a human being with a little self respect and dignity should be living under the umbrella of united india. 
Your history books are full of lies and propaganda and belong to some library owned by RSS and BJP.


nForce said:


> I believe you missed the very first line of my previous post. No, I or those who think alike, don't want that. For I believe it's two late and dangerous and counter-productive.
> After all, why do we want to unite with a nation with* little natural resources, dwindling economy having a large section of society radicalized, gripped in violence* ? The return on investment is not good. We will create more problems for ourselves than what we already have.


Rich irony coming from a indian 
Be rational just like any other country we too got problems.


nForce said:


> If your internal bonding is so feeble that it breaks from outside then it is meant to be broken, be it today or tomorrow.
> The catch here is (if you still can't see it) language and culture are far more important and stronger binding factor than religion. One tries to attack that and there are bound to be severe repercussions.
> 
> When Bangladesh was created, *it consisted of a little more than half the population of undivided Pakistan*.
> That again, shatters Jinnah's theory that religion can be the basis of nation building, as more than half the population of undivided Pakistan went on to create a secular nation on the basis of a common language and culture and not religion.
> 
> Now, coming to Zia-ul-Haq. One creates a nation on the basis of religion and it is obvious religion will be hyped over there. Any kind of patriotism has to be linked with that religion only. Now that's a perfect recipe to alienate the non-believers but may also create problems for the believers in that religion. Zia is one of the many, Pakistan was declared Islamic Republic in 1956, not even 10 years had passed after it's creation. If Jinnah could not foresee that, then, with all due respect, he was a fool.


I am gain telling you Bangladesh is just a result for our few mistakes,it,s geographical location and your propaganda.
Ok you meant to be a secular state then how come you people have more freedom movements than Pakistan? Naxalites,Kashmiri people,assam people,khalistanis etc all want freedom from a hindu india.Where is your internal bonding ? Stop being such a hypocrite.As said by many historians plenty of times india is not a country it,s a geographical term and hence anyone have the right to form a separate nation if the majority wants. 
No one should accept to live under united india if they dont want to .Be it sikhs,kashmiris etc not just muslims. Even after getting hijacked from the maulana brigade pakistan still have a purpose and identity but india don,t have any.It,s just a matter of time when the good leader will come and secularism will prevail but due to plenty of different religions and cultures and hindutva terrorism further partition of india is inevitable in future.


nForce said:


> Pakistan was never meant to be a secular state. How does one create a whole country on the basis of a single religion and then call it secular ?


Ok moron what about Malaysia and turkey? You definitely don,t know the meaning of secularism.Secularism just means separation of mosque or church from the state.It can belong to particular culture or religion.
I know still to this day you people cry after looking at the map of akhand bharat ans i can imagine how painful it is for you.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@nForce and everybody else.

Let us for a second make a assumption as fact that :-

* "Pakistan was was detached from British India in 1947 on the flights of fancy of some dreamers like Sir Allama Iqbal and Rehmat Ali. Then it became reality because British India had two pretenders for the throne, Nehru and Jinnah. Thus two kngdoms were carved to accomodate both kings"*

If raison d'etre for Pakistan* turns out* it was just because of some * dreamers* and *greedy politicial* it would be rather similar to finding out the only reason your here is because of the twinkle in your dad's eye.Simple, crude and not very edyfing and possibly sad but does it really matter? What *effect *or *implications* are there for 2015 Pakistan?

Is it* profound *in any way?


----------



## nForce

Atanz said:


> @nForce and everybody else.
> 
> Let us for a second make a assumption as fact that :-
> 
> * "Pakistan was was detached from British India in 1947 on the flights of fancy of some dreamers like Sir Allama Iqbal and Rehmat Ali. Then it became reality because British India had two pretenders for the throne, Nehru and Jinnah. Thus two kngdoms were carved to accomodate both kings"*
> 
> If raison d'etre for Pakistan* turns out* it was just because of some * dreamers* and *greedy politicial* it would be rather similar to finding out the only reason your here is because of the twinkle in your dad's eye.Simple, crude and not very edyfing and possibly sad but does it really matter? What *effect *or *implications* are there for 2015 Pakistan?
> 
> Is it* profound *in any way?



Hmm.. you do make a lot of assumptions. But I will leave you to that.

Answering your question, assuming what's done is done and now what are the implications of that in present day Pakistan - 
We are well aware of the fact that India and Pakistan were created on religious lines. The idea was pitched in Jinnah supported by many Muslim elites of the time, which was built around the two primary ideas :

1. Hindus and Muslims cannot live peacefully together.
2. Religion can be the cradle of nation.

Both the idea have been debunked by the events that followed, and unfortunately the debunking of these two very ideas behind the creation and existence of Pakistan is linked to India and that's on top of the Kashmir issue. In fact, this issue is far more intrinsic and important than Kashmir issue, which is just yet another land-related issue, hundreds of such instances can be found across the World.

The fact that a large section of Muslims live and thrive in India debunks the first idea.
The fact that Pakistan broke in linguistic or racial lines instead of being united by religion debunks the second idea. In this connection it is important to note that, in 1937 Indian provincial election, the Muslim League could not even get 2 seats in Punjab, while their biggest victory was in Bengal with 37 seats. Jinnah should have understood back then only, that religion is not the key here, but anyways he decided to go ahead. It is an irony only that the the same Bengal detached itself from Pakistan to create a secular nation, while Punjab serves as the backbone of Pakistan today.

But Pakistan has been already created and it has moved in a different direction since then. Now there is no going back. So, what now ? The answer again lies in the way Pakistan was created and the entity that safeguards it's ideology.

Pakistan has been created as the fortress of Islam, that is also something impregnated within the minds of Pakistanis, directly or indirectly. The Pakistani army sees itself securing Pakistan's ideological frontiers with Islam being an enduring feature of the army's strategic culture. There is a sense of insecurity that arises out of this, security of Islam and it's followers and thereby that of Pakistan from India. That insecurity is used to by Pakistani leaders and the Army to unite people, with the common enemy being India. This insecurity and thereby the animosity that arises from it is well-rehearsed in Pakistan’s military histories, school textbooks, and popular cultural productions, up to a point where the arrangement supersedes the necessity, which is again quite funny, because there was no necessity to begin with.

So, this is the implication, the insecurity, followed by animosity and hatred, strengthened by multiple wars, safeguarded by Pakistani army, which finds it to be an ideology that unites Pakistan. 
It is not Iqbal or Rehmat Ali which is the problem. It is the unstable concoction of religion and insecurity, which is the problem. This is again quite ironical because religion is supposed to make life better and not worse.

The right way forward would be not to relate to the ideology behind creation of Pakistan, for that has already been proven to be flawed, put that aside, relate to ground realities and then move ahead as a modern nation.


----------

