Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?

[Subramanian]

Here are some facts you,


Direct action was in 1946 and that even in Muslim minority area. While Jinnah was in politics from early 1900s. So in 50 years, you pick up one incidence and blame it on him?

FYI! None of the Muslim majority areas saw big time riots by league in the Muslim majority areas.

Whatever happened in Kolkata was local Bengali issue, and then it was used for killing 1000s of Bihari Muslims.

Common dear. Get out of 3rd grade sarkari school History books.

peace.,

Yeah but the importance of the action is huge and paved the way for the largescale violence that we later saw in Punjab.

If the colonial government had dealt with it strongly,we would not have seen the starting of violence in Punjab,The Muslim league was squarely responsible for this and Jinnah was no saint.

At that point,his ego was all that mattered to him.

For all the hate i have for Gandhi,he was a genuine person who prevented violence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Assumptions are so easy to make.
Also, being learned or having published a couple of books does not mean that you are always right. Also, I'm assuming you haven't read his books.

It gives him some claim to erudition, not to being right. It therefore encourages us to read what he has to write, as he has proven that he can write well. We can put more trust on that than on the anonymous expertise of people who have less than 750 posts to their credit.

And yes, I have read Moth Smoke, his first book.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....


Who was Lord Batton? And what does 'mounting' Delhi mean?

Ha. So now you forgot the Gora overlord who ruled India even after it supposedly was freed on Aug 15th. I bet your history books "white" washed that fact too. Yeah it may be there but totally washed in white.

.... this is India and it will be independent India, except that part of it defined as Pakistan.....

You Sir are confusing the terms "dominion of India" with the "British Raaj controlled entity called India". And you want everyone else to be confused about that too.

But for why?

Just for false ego boosting? That we the Indians are true blue followers of gora, while them Pakistani brownies are not.

Pure Brahmanism aka racism and nothing else.


peace, .

 

[Joe Shearer]

I imagine any decisive movement towards secularization will be met with violence from militant religious groups. Are there any secularists left who are willing to risk their lives for their vision of Pakistan?

Actually, there are. A feisty articulate lot who would embellish any society in which they were. They are even on this forum.

Ha. So now you forgot the Gora overlord who ruled India even after it supposedly was freed on Aug 15th. I bet your history books "white" washed that fact too. Yeah it may be there but totally washed in white.

I am merely pointing out that there was no Lord Batton. Since you claim to be an historian, you should know this,should you not?

You Sir are confusing the terms "dominion of India" with the "British Raaj controlled entity called India". And you want everyone else to be confused about that too.

No, I have not. One succeeded the other, and was the successor state,in international law. This was tested during Pakistn's application for automatic UN membership,based on the same wishful logic as yours, and was turned down. Which part of that seems confusing to you?

But for why?

Just for false ego boosting? That we the Indians are true blue followers of gora, while them Pakistani brownies are not.

Pure Brahmanism aka racism and nothing else.


peace, .

I beg your pardon. Indians, Brahmin or otherwise, did not write the statutes; the British did.

You should take up your grievances with them.

Be sure to hire an interpreter.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Yeah but the importance of the action is huge and paved the way for the largescale violence that we later saw in Punjab..

ha. So you want to ignore the 1946 butchery of 1000s upon 1000s of Bihari Muslims and jump to 1947 killings in Punjab. And that too as a result of "direct action"?

hahahahha. Oh my dear your version is called "seat of the pants history",

Jinnah in his 50+ years of political career avoided street action as a plague. He opposed Tehrik lafafah Khilafah but Gandhi was the main agitator for Khilafat.

In 1946, even when he talked about Direct action, none of the Muslim majority areas used it for street thuggery that was the hall mark of Congress.

So my dear dear you are confusing the events really badly.

Punjab's killings in fact started in Delhi train attack that was carrying baboos to Pakistan. Jinnah is on record asking governor Jenkins of Punjab to put more troops to protect trains carrying staff of the newly formed Pakistan.

It was Sardar Wilbh Bhai Patel who opposed putting any guards on these trains. And you know why? As an interior minister he had already made up his mind to obstruct the departure of government baboos who opted for Pakistan,. He wanted to teach them a lesson and in the process hinder the formation and stabilization of Pakistan.

But you guys will ignore that because it hurts to see the Indian role in the bloodshed, and hurts your ego.


Peace.,

 

[Subramanian]

You mean that 66 years later, either I must claim to know his mental capacity, or we must accept that you, some unknown anonymous poster on a defence forum of uncertain background and unknown track record, will be entitled to sit on judgement on one of the most brilliant barristers of his day, a politician who enjoyed the confidence of Gokhale and the entire Congress before the advent of Gandhi, and the most redoubtable opponent that the British admitted facing?

I can't say about your intellect - it has not been on display so far - but his was much admired.



If you have so much money, why don't you hire somebody to write your posts for you?

Again,

all that doesn't matter.Nobody is calling him Incapable of anything,it is about his moral stance.

For all the glorification his policies were failed ones,his idea of the state lasted just his life and has/had no takers even now.

Whatever his intellect might be,if a man succumbs to his ego and abuses it and ends up doing Direct Action Day,whats the point?

why should i hero worship him?

Hero worship is the most dangerous thing as it influences future behavior,

Just like Tito's optimism slaughtered Yugoslavia,Jinnah's pragmatism and the British Cunning ate the lives of Hindus.

He may be a great guy but he is no saint,even Hitler was great and successful,so what?

 

[FaujHistorian]

......


I am merely pointing out that there was no Lord Batton. ......

But you do know that Goras remained the top dog of Indian even after Aug 15. Right

And the name of that gora was?

Yes,

Say it!

Lord

Mount

Batton.

Got it.


peace to you.

 

[Subramanian]

ha. So you want to ignore the 1946 butchery of 1000s upon 1000s of Bihari Muslims and jump to 1947 killings in Punjab. And that too as a result of "direct action"?

hahahahha. Oh my dear your version is called "seat of the pants history",

Jinnah in his 50+ years of political career avoided street action as a plague. He opposed Tehrik lafafah Khilafah but Gandhi was the main agitator for Khilafat.

In 1946, even when he talked about Direct action, none of the Muslim majority areas used it for street thuggery that was the hall mark of Congress.

So my dear dear you are confusing the events really badly.

Punjab's killings in fact started in Delhi train attack that was carrying baboos to Pakistan. Jinnah is on record asking governor Jenkins of Punjab to put more troops to protect trains carrying staff of the newly formed Pakistan.

It was Sardar Wilbh Bhai Patel who opposed putting any guards on these trains. And you know why? As an interior minister he had already made up his mind to obstruct the departure of government baboos who opted for Pakistan,. He wanted to teach them a lesson and in the process hinder the formation and stabilization of Pakistan.

But you guys will ignore that because it hurts to see the Indian role in the bloodshed, and hurts your ego.


Peace.,

Please,

So you are telling me these silly details to be the reason for the bloodshed and not the hastening of Partition in a haphazard way by the British and that the ML had no rule in it?

Weren't the ML in a hurry to eat their pie?

And who started the agitation and Hartal in Calcutta?

Is Suhawardy such a saint??

Of course,if u act first,u ll get a befitting response and thats what they got.

The Punjab violence started because of the rule that majority population provinces ll get preference and as a result,the provinces with small majorities wanted to increase it further by eliminating the other ones and what the Sikhs did was a retaliation to what happened in Pakistan.

As always violence is never started by Hindus/Sikhs.Only response.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....,it is about his [Jinnah's] moral stance.....?

His moral stance was really simple. There should be protection for individual provinces from the shenanigans from center. He never said or advocated militancy against the center. Never said that we want to rip apart the Indian union.

But congress was behaving as if it was the incarnation of gods. So it refused.

Congress calculation was that West Pakistan cannot survive for more than 2 years and East even less.

You gotta read the speeches made by Congressis and other Indians and how poisonous they were against East Pakistan (and the west too)., There were chants to reoccupy E. Bengal.

When the 50s came and Congress realized that Pakistan is not going anywhere, and instead have received the full support of USA, Congressites launched other destabilization plans.

Stop the damn wanter going to Punjab and E. Bengal was the war cry.

Don't process the jute in Calcutta. was the battle shouts.


But you the new generation of internet savvy Indians won't read that part. Sadly.

So this pathetic existence of a country called Pakistan will remain in your cross-hair and so will the long gone Jinnah.

If you want to know Jinnah, and don't want to dig deep, just read his 1948 interview to NYT correspondent.


peace.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My comments in italics under your remarks.

Again,

all that doesn't matter.Nobody is calling him Incapable of anything,it is about his moral stance.

While I personally deplore the call for Direct Action Day, it seems, on balance, that there was very limited violence except in Calcutta, where it was horrific. The first day or two were marked by the withholding of police intervention, largely through the actions of the Chief Minister, who camped in the control room throughout the day - this was the day after he delivered an incendiary speech in the afternoon, which led to riots commencing from the same evening.

It is not at all clear that Jinnah had intended more than a general strike, no evidence that he had any notion of murderous riots.



For all the glorification his policies were failed ones,his idea of the state lasted just his life and has/had no takers even now.

It is this that has led to so much analysis of the situation. He was unable to institutionalise his thinking, whereas the Congress leadership, whatever the flaws in their policies, succeeded.

Your observation is what has attracted the curiousity of historians to this day.


why should i hero worship him?

Hero worship is the most dangerous thing as it influences future behavior,

Nobody is suggesting hero worship. I do admire his qualities and character and personality, but it does not extend to blind hero worship, nor am I suggesting that such a thing is necessary. Merely that we need not belittle him and twist things and mock him.


Just like Tito's optimism slaughtered Yugoslavia,Jinnah's pragmatism and the British Cunning ate the lives of Hindus.

He may be a great guy but he is no saint,even Hitler was great and successful,so what?

I can only deplore the comparison.

 

[FaujHistorian]

......
And who started the agitation and Hartal in Calcutta?

Is Suhawardy such a saint??
.....

Suhrawardy was the culprit for sure. he did start hartal in Calcutta. Who can deny that?

But his hartal was few hours long. What happened after than and the role of Congress in Calcutta and Bihar should not be ignored either.

Still the direct action thingy was a local issue back then as Suhrawardy was in minority. He was not hailed as a hero in Muslim majority areas for starting the stupid hartal.

No one picked up and axe.

Even when 10000s of Biharis were butchered by the followers of Gandhi, the only reaction was in E. Bengal and not for the Bihari killings, but the killings of Bengalis in Calcutta.

Thus your assertions and lumping of Sept 1946 to Punjab violence in 1947 is incorrect.

peace.

 

[Solomon2]

In reality we just need to get along.

How can that happen as long as Pakistanis can accuse each other of blasphemy, real or imagined, without fear of penalty? Or if Muslims stealing brides from Hindus isn't a prosecutable crime? Or if Muslims, even those who are listed as Muslims due to paperwork errors, can't freely choose another religion?

In each case it is religious intolerance over-riding secularism that prevails. The secularists can "get along" all they want but intolerant religious bigotry, supported by the mechanisms of the state, won't let go.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Pakistan is already alarmingly secular and has been for the longest time

 

[Joe Shearer]

But you do know that Goras remained the top dog of Indian even after Aug 15. Right

And the name of that gora was?

Yes,

Say it!
H
Lord
h
Mount

Batton.

Got it.


peace to you.

Oh, I see. So to you, any and all parts of the name are equally valid. What an historian!

For your information, Mountbatten stayed on as Governor General, not as Viceroy. His equivalent was Jinnah in Pakistan.

As you seem to be filled with strange ideas, let me point out that the legal position was that a Dominion was created, the Dominion of India, ruled by q Governor General, and under the old laws and with the King of England as Head of State, represented by his representative, the Governor General, Lord Mountbatten. Another Dominion, Pakistan, was carved out of India, and existed independent, but under the old laws and with the King of England as Head of State, represented by his representative, the Governor General, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Until the two Dominions agreed on their constitution, they remained in this state, India until 1950, Pakistan until 1956.

 

[Tshering22]

IMO it is not possible to secularize Pakistan and TBH there's no use of secularization of your country as it would make your society spineless like how our Indian society has become. However, rather than the negative term of south asian style secularism, I'd say you guys need to lighten up; like Turkey. Has Turkey been converted to a non-Muslim state? No. But does it have radical fanatics everywhere? No.

See? That's the balance which Pakistan should aim at.