Did Bangladesh become the country Jinnah wanted to Create?

[Areesh]

This kind of BS can only be published in ET. And only low IQ Indians can believe in it.

 

[tarrar]

Are you all for real? Bangladesh Govt. & forces just recetly brutalised 1000's of Muslims in Bangladesh. How is it todays Bangladesh what Quaid E Azam wanted? Plus the current Bangladeshi Govt. is Pro Indian & 100% Anti Pakistan. You all people need to use your brains before starting a topic. There is so much more don't want to start a new topic here.

In simple words NO.

 

[MadDog]

Who said Jinnah was a great man? He was an opportunist.

You really need to study about this person more...he was not a typical politician, He had a vision..and didn't compromise on it..despite the fact he was offered to be made the first Prime Minister of the whole subcontinent...if he wanted power he could have opted for it..but he stuck to his vision..he knew he was suffering from tuberculosis and kept it a secret from the British and the Congress.....otherwise the British would have delayed the creation of Pakistan and India...the only person in the last 70 years who could be considered equal to Jinnah is Imran Khan..Imran Khan refused 3 Billion Sterling Pounds on his divorce with his wife when he was offered by his lawyer...This is being honorable, righteous, truthful and Just.

The only people in Pakistan who hated Jinnah were the mullahs..since he wasn't religious..they called him Kafir-e-Azam.

 

[Armstrong]

You really need to study about this person more...he was not a typical politician, He had a vision..and didn't compromise on it..despite the fact he was offered to be made the first Prime Minister of the whole subcontinent...if he wanted power he could have opted for it..but he stuck to his vision..he knew he was suffering from tuberculosis and kept it a secret from the British and the Congress.....otherwise the British would have delayed the creation of Pakistan and India...the only person in the last 70 years who could be considered equal to Jinnah is Imran Khan..Imran Khan refused 3 Billion Sterling Pounds on his divorce with his wife when he was offered by his lawyer...This is being honorable, righteous, truthful and Just.

The only people in Pakistan who hated Jinnah were the mullahs..since he wasn't religious..they called him Kafir-e-Azam.

I'm a PTI supporter but dude, no one comes to close the Father....no one !

 

[IND151]

I think Turkiye is more like the country Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted to resemble.

May be

Turkey is Muslim nation yet relatively more modern and secular than other muslim states

 

[mehboobkz]

M.A Jinah was to Pakistan what Mujibur Rehman was to Bangladesh.

One was "how r u? the other was "Ki Khobar"

One was Beef the other was Hilsa mach.

 

[Spring Onion]

I think not yet, Bangaldesh is still in the process of becoming one. Jinnah was a great man and wished for a great pakistan, but today it is only India in the entire sub continent that is 100% secular with Muslim, christian and sikh Presidents and Prime Ministers. Indias will accept anyone as their leader if he or she is taleted enough. This is real secularism.

Pakistan is infact going the opposite way as for now.

 

[zakriaarshad]

BDforever - Thanks for visiting my post. It was written by Abdul Majeed, I found in the blogs section of the Express Tribune. Worth a read I thought.

YA a real "worth read".....to see how the writer is suffering from a$$ hole pain.......What the bullshitt article... wastage of 3 minutes of crap reading....

 

[Tangent]

May be

Turkey is Muslim nation yet relatively more modern and secular than other muslim states

..This is because, Turkey, as a state, disdain the muslim philosophy. People practice the muslim as a person's religion, not as a state's.
Turkey ( Atta Turk ) DE-throned Khilifa and sanitized the state from the old muslim ideology.
For him a ..being muslim is inversely proportion to being progressive... at least for a state..
BTW, Malayasia too can be a contender for a good muslim state.

 

[MadDog]

I'm a PTI supporter but dude, no one comes to close the Father....no one !

Well Quied-e-Azam was a human being...if given a chance Imran Khan can prove to be a match..or even a better leader..I have no doubt in my mind.

 

[SamantK]

Well Quied-e-Azam was a human being...if given a chance Imran Khan can prove to be a match..or even a better leader..I have no doubt in my mind.

Both cannot be compared IMO, Jinnah never got any major chance, to prove himself, apart from playing the rhetoric to the Muslim vote bank whereas Imran Khan is not yet a leader and an inexperienced one at that.

 

[krash]

the validity of my perception about Mr. Jinnah is countering serious doubts after this article.

Well, it shouldn't. Its becoming an increasing trend in Pakistan to criticize the man but only when you don't know anything about him. You know, the pretentious, ill-informed, ill-educated (if at all), self righteous, self acclaimed know it all, "flailing the flag of 'liberalism' when they don't know squat about it" lot? Yeah we have plenty of those around these days. Sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from the mullahs; mirror images. Now this gentleman, for some non apparent reason, has forgotten (or maybe he never cared to pick up a book) the basic premise of Mr. Jinnah's fight: United India with more autonomy to the provinces up till the 1940s i.e. greater safeguards for the Muslims of India. This only changed when Mr. Nehru out-rightly rejected the proposal. Then there's the simple matter of the adopted constitution, the name of the country, a bazillion statements where he clearly states what mold he wishes for the country, all the mullah's hating him, janab Maulana Moududi's (and his party, Jamat-e-Islami's) boycott against Pakistan due to what Mr. Jinnah put forth as our aim (btw Maulana sahib didn't come to Pakistan for quite a few years even after Mr. Jinnah's death because he wanted a pure and staunch Islamic state which Mr. Jinnah didn't agree to. Yeah that's the 'great scholar' he's made reference too. Shows you what this imbecile had in mind while writing this). What I would like for the author to state is a single statement by the man promising a state which was Islamic. Any moron with elementary reading skills could pick up a book and realize what Mr. Jinnah stood for.

I'll just briefly touch his second and third points. The sole representation of the Muslims of India was given to the Muslim league by the Muslims of India when they overwhelming voted for the party. Keep in mind that these elections were fought directly in context of the 'partition question' vis-a-vis the Muslims of India. Keep also the fact in mind that the representatives then chosen were also being chosen in the context of the partition with regards to the representation of the religious group's and hence their leanings towards the partition i.e. Muslims chose partition and in result chose Muslim League since that is what the party stood for, congress does not get to choose to represent the muslims when it stands against the partition which the Muslims overwhelmingly stand in agreement with. In such a scenario the Muslim League had every right to be the sole representative of the Indian Muslims. What this moron failed to realize is that the politics of that time was not of power, politics or the making of the government. It was about the partition and who represented which choice about it.

His third point; So the country had barely been born, a year before when it was supposed to, without any political, infrastructural or any other form of network present, with millions of people pouring in from the border in Punjab, a war being fought over Kashmir, no money, no support systems, quite literally in chaos and Mr. Author here wants to have had elections held? Surely he's a bit short on common sense. Also there's this matter of the 1945-46 elections. Which, again, were fought on the pretext of the partition with the representation of the Indian Muslims at stake. Elections which the Muslim League won, effectively securing its place as the representative and power-eligible party of the Indian Muslims with Mr. Jinnah as its head. He, effectively, is chosen as the leader of the Muslims of the subcontinent who on the 14th of August constitute as the state of Pakistan.

Therefore, Yaqoob Khan Bangash is an uneducated moron, who defines everything through his narrow and feeble sense of perception and understanding, excludes everything which is not in accordance with his agenda and is only another monkey that the express tribune has hired to keep pretending as a news source.

Who said Jinnah was a great man? He was an opportunist.

Yeah. One who gave up the governorship of Bombay when he was around 30(?), the knighthood, the power over the whole of India, his life, his health and God knows what else for the sole purpose of his principles. A very sorry opportunist, I must say.

PS: @MadDog, Imran Khan can't hold a candle up to the man. When compared to Jinnah he has no character.

 

[baajey]

Well, it shouldn't. Its becoming an increasing trend in Pakistan to criticize the man but only when you don't know anything about him. You know, the pretentious, ill-informed, ill-educated (if at all), self righteous, self acclaimed know it all, "flailing the flag of 'liberalism' when they don't know squat about it" lot? Yeah we have plenty of those around these days. Sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from the mullahs; mirror images. Now this gentleman, for some non apparent reason, has forgotten (or maybe he never cared to pick up a book) the basic premise of Mr. Jinnah's fight: United India with more autonomy to the provinces up till the 1940s i.e. greater safeguards for the Muslims of India. This only changed when Mr. Nehru out-rightly rejected the proposal. Then there's the simple matter of the adopted constitution, the name of the country, a bazillion statements where he clearly states what mold he wishes for the country, all the mullah's hating him, janab Maulana Moududi's (and his party, Jamat-e-Islami's) boycott against Pakistan due to what Mr. Jinnah put forth as our aim (btw Maulana sahib didn't come to Pakistan for quite a few years after Mr. Jinnah's death because he wanted a pure and staunch Islamic state which Mr. Jinnah didn't agree too. Yeah that's the 'great scholar' he's made reference too. Shows you what this imbecile had in mind while writing this). What I would like for the author to state is a single statement by the man promising a state which was Islamic. Any moron with elementary reading skills could pick up a book and realize what Mr. Jinnah stood for.

I'll just briefly touch his second and third points. The sole representation of the Muslims of India was given to the Muslim league by the Muslims of India when they overwhelming voted for the party. Keep in mind that these elections were fought directly in context of the 'partition question' vis-a-vis the Muslims of India. Keep also the fact in mind that the representatives then chosen were also being chosen in the context of the partition with regards to the representation of the religious group's and hence their leanings towards the partition i.e. Muslims chose partition and in result chose Muslim League since that is what the party stood for, congress does not get to choose to represent the muslims when it stands against the partition which the Muslims overwhelmingly stand in agreement with. In such a scenario the Muslim League had every right to be the sole representative of the Indian Muslims. What this moron failed to realize is that the politics of that time was not of power, politics or the making of the government. It was about the partition and who represented which choice about it.

His third point; So the country had barely been born, a year before when it was supposed to, without any political, infrastructural or any other form of network present, with millions of people pouring in from the border in Punjab, a war being fought over Kashmir, no money, no support systems, quite literally in chaos and Mr. Author here wants to have had elections held? Surely he's a bit short on common sense. Also there's this matter of the 1945-46 elections. Which, again, were fought on the pretext of the partition with the representation of the Indian Muslims at stake. Elections which the Muslim League won, effectively securing its place as the representative and power-eligible party of the Indian Muslims with Mr. Jinnah as its head. The partition happens after a year. You don't get any more credibility to run the new country than that.

Therefore, Yaqoob Khan Bangash is an uneducated moron, who defines everything through his narrow and feeble sense of perception and understanding, excludes everything which is not in accordance with his agenda and is only another monkey that the express tribune has hired to keep pretending as a news source.



Yeah. One who gave up the governorship of Bombay when he was around 30(?), the knighthood, the power over the whole of India, his life, his health and God knows what else for the sole purpose of his principles. A very sorry opportunistic, I must say.

PS: @MadDog, Imran Khan can't hold a candle up to the man. When compared to Jinnah he has no character.

@1st para:
very true. its a fashion nowadays to mud sling great leaders showing their little known-inconsequential-deviations from their usual great selves just to show ppl how well informed we are.
in India, men on street demonize MAJ, quite understandably, for the division of the subcontinent. but the same ppl either dont know (or don't want to know) that MAJ was one of the pioneers of communal harmony, and more importantly, nationalism and don't care to find out why he was forced to deviate from that line.
speculations will remain, but if he was given a chance to run Pakistan for the period mr. nehru enjoyed, we could very well would have seen a different Pakistan today and its relations vis-a-vis India.

@second para:
agreed that the ML won overwhelmingly due to the muslim votes in muslim majority regions, but i find that hard to justify the fact that they are the sole n only Muslim representative of the subcontinental Muslims. so much so, that no muslim can join any other party barring the ML. preposterous. the very idea of election/democracy whooped.

@third para:
cant agree more.
but i wonder, if pakistan was in such dire straits, why o why it tried to thrust the first indo-pak war. JnK was not going anywhere, the maharaja was not inclined to join the indian union (the war pushed him towards india). pakistan shud have managed its basics first before going to war based on suspicion that india was going to gobble up kashmir.
IMO, the biggest blunder on the part of pakistani establishment was not bringing the land reforms as soon as it came into being. Second was not acting any sooner bringing a constitution. india was no good either, but if they had more resourses, they had many many more moths to feed. but the initial inputs such as land reforms, education, phased industrialization etc paid dividends in the long run. those initial work by the indian establishment (however socialist n demonic they seem to be ) saved the union from collapsing under its own weight during the period of 70s-90s.


he was a great man, a hero of our region. sadly some ppl in pak and most ppl in india are simply ignorant of this fact. remember what happened to advani and jaswant singh ??

 

[muse]

This kind of BS can only be published in ET. And only low IQ Indians can believe in it.

this was also published in ET -- lets see how many low IQ Pakistanis and Indians will buy into it:

Jinnah’s Pakistan: a rebuttal
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Published: March 20, 2013

The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and author of the book Jinnah: Myth and Reality (Vanguard). He may be reached on twitter @therealylh

Mr Yaqoob Khan Bangash’s article “Jinnah’s Pakistan” (March 19) was historically inaccurate and counterfactual. There were three basic claims that Mr Bangash put up, which need to be reviewed in detail.

One of Mr Bangash’s assertions was that since Jinnah claimed that the Muslim League was the sole representative of the Muslims in the 1940s, he was declaring Muslims outside of it non-Muslim. This is untrue. On the contrary, it was Jinnah who was called ‘Kafir-e-Azam’ or the great infidel by Muslims outside the Muslim League. Jinnah’s Muslim League was a big tent political organisation of Muslims, which had in its fold Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, Mahdavis and Ismailis. The question of defining a Muslim did not arise.

Outside the League’s fold, stood parties such as the Majlis-e-Ahrar, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Jamaat-e-Islami; all organisations which have made takfir an exact science. The first two were backed by the Congress Party and it was the Majlis-e-Ahrar — led by anti-Pakistan Muslims, like Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Agha Shorish Kashmiri — that led the movement against Ahmadis after Partition. To the credit of Muslim League’s Khawaja Nazimuddin, the government refused to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim in 1953. In 1974, it was the PPP which surrendered the state and sanity to the same forces who had opposed Jinnah tooth and nail.

Jinnah’s claim that the Muslim League was the sole authoritative representative of Muslims came after he managed to bring the powerful premiers of Punjab and Bengal behind the Muslim League in 1938. In 1946, it was cemented by the elections. His claim was a political one; i.e., the Muslim League, by virtue of its overwhelming majority on Muslim seats, represents the Muslims of India. Gandhi had accepted this and signed a statement to this effect. It had nothing to do with saying that those outside the League were not Muslim and there is nothing to that effect from Jinnah or anyone else in the League. The claim was simply that on an all-India level, it was the League that could speak for Muslims.

Another of Mr Bangash’s claims is that Jinnah’s August 11 speech is a one-off speech or an aberration. This is also completely untrue. Jinnah’s political career, spanning four decades, is a testament to his commitment to religious freedom, progressive causes, civil liberties and equality. Even during the Pakistan Movement, Jinnah made it absolutely clear that Pakistan, if formed, would not discriminate on the basis of faith. There are a multitude of speeches and statements that can be quoted in this regard, including Jinnah’s famous interview on May 21, 1947 or his 30-odd statements to this effect, as governor general, where he explained in clear terms that the government of the new state would be popular and inclusive and would treat all its citizens, whatever their faith, equally and without distinction. In any event, Jinnah’s clear policy statements trump any ambiguous Eid message he would have given long before Pakistan was a reality. In any event, Dr Ayesha Jalal has shown consistently and conclusively that the Pakistan demand was a push for power-sharing between communities in a divided society.

The third claim made by Mr Bangash is about Jinnah’s actions vis-a-vis then-NWFP (present-day Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa), which are again off base. The reason why the Khan Sahib ministry had to be sent packing was because it lost the majority in the assembly and was effectively a minority government. Dr Khan Sahib became the premier after the 1946 election on the basis of 30 members in a house of 50. Out of these 30 members, 12 were Hindu MLAs. Eleven of these 12 Hindu members moved to India at the time of independence. Two others belonged to the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, an ally of the Congress. The facts were that on August 14,1947, Dr Khan Sahib had only 18 members in a house of 39. On August 22, 1947, Dr Khan Sahib was left with only 16 members in a House of 39. Congress, Jinnah and Mountbatten had agreed on August 1, 1947 that Dr Khan Sahib would resign but he refused to do so. Jinnah had given up Section 93 voluntarily. It was Section 51(5) that was used to invite a new member to form the government. The new ministry got a vote of confidence by the budget session. So, constitutionally and morally, this was an in-house change.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 21st, 2013.

 

[krash]

@1st para:
very true. its a fashion nowadays to mud sling great leaders showing their little known-inconsequential-deviations from their usual great selves just to show ppl how well informed we are.
in India, men on street demonize MAJ, quite understandably, for the division of the subcontinent. but the same ppl either dont know (or don't want to know) that MAJ was one of the pioneers of communal harmony, and more importantly, nationalism and don't care to find out why he was forced to deviate from that line.
speculations will remain, but if he was given a chance to run Pakistan for the period mr. nehru enjoyed, we could very well would have seen a different Pakistan today and its relations vis-a-vis India.

I have no doubt about that.

@second para:
agreed that the ML won overwhelmingly due to the muslim votes in muslim majority regions, but i find that hard to justify the fact that they are the sole n only Muslim representative of the subcontinental Muslims. so much so, that no muslim can join any other party barring the ML. preposterous. the very idea of election/democracy whooped.

Muse's post above has answered this better than I could have.

@third para:
cant agree more.
but i wonder, if pakistan was in such dire straits, why o why it tried to thrust the first indo-pak war. JnK was not going anywhere, the maharaja was not inclined to join the indian union (the war pushed him towards india). pakistan shud have managed its basics first before going to war based on suspicion that india was going to gobble up kashmir.

This is a discussion for another time and place, so briefly; imagine if one's home is threatened, any little part of it, that too when it is being born. That is a question mark on its very coming into existence right there. The threat was perceived and acted upon as such (I won't argue that the PA was sent in after the IA was mobilized, that the Maharaja was being coerced into succeeding with India since before and that the lashkars started pouring in when it became obvious that the he was going to side with India pretty soon. We can agree to disagree here). There were no ifs and buts in this situation, there was no choice in the matter. Pakistan's rights were perceived to be in danger and they had to be fought for. Besides, look at what was achieved when the struggle was stopped after the promise of solving it through more civil means...nada, except for the six decades of animosity which have completely shaped the picture in region and not a pretty one at that. And it doesn't seem to be changing for the better anytime soon either. Had Mountbatten not been the spineless, incompetent moron that he was things would have been a lot different, shifting the independence dates a year earlier was a disaster.

IMO, the biggest blunder on the part of pakistani establishment was not bringing the land reforms as soon as it came into being. Second was not acting any sooner bringing a constitution. india was no good either, but if they had more resourses, they had many many more moths to feed. but the initial inputs such as land reforms, education, phased industrialization etc paid dividends in the long run. those initial work by the indian establishment (however socialist n demonic they seem to be ) saved the union from collapsing under its own weight during the period of 70s-90s.

No argument here. You're cent percent correct.

he was a great man, a hero of our region. sadly some ppl in pak and most ppl in india are simply ignorant of this fact. remember what happened to advani and jaswant singh ??

Yup. Our time belongs to characterless sheep with fangs. They cannot understand greatness, they've never seen it. I always respected Jinnah for what he had done for this country but I only fell in love with him when I came to know what sort of a man he was.