What's new

Jinnah VS A.Kalam Azad

Well, if I say partition was bad, we are accused of not acknowledging and accepting Pakistan.

Now that we say that we are glad for the partition, we are accused as well.

You guys are a tad difficult to please. ;)

Dude Pakistan + India = guaranteed argument. Doesn't matter what the subject is so lets just chill and accept it.
 
.
The Quaid changed the map of the world, azad did what he did, not much people outside india, know he exists.

Did he make the tectonic plates bash each other?

Bottom line an Indian Dalit above has said that India is a toilet which everyone is trying to leave based on govt of inida or UN figures. Had Azad had the benefit of these statistics and figures he would have agreed with the great Quaid. Why do you Indians get off on the fiction that Quaid and we were wrong to go for Pakistan. Go look at the figures above. keep this thread alive so all can see those facts and figures and Pakistanis can appreciate what we have despite our problems

You remind me of guys working in Strategy division of most companies,making analysis on paper and selling it to clients for peanuts who throw it into the trash without even opening the envelope.

I went a while ago.. so I cannot state the conditions now..
My ancestral home(whatever is left of it)
Mostafa Manzil, Katra, Abo Tarab, Lucknow

My grandmothers father was the editor of an urdu daily from the area(apparently the paper shut down due to mismanagement by his sons) and was a staunch congress supporter.
He was close friends with Nehru.. and was able to simply walk into the PM's office whenever he wished..
I must admit I was saddened on a personal level when I visited that area since that very compound was once frequented by the likes of Jawaharlal Nehru and ironically maulana Azad..looked like a rundown area when I visited it.
None of his sons or even those of his cousins migrated right after 47... but as time passed they realized that India was not offering them all that was promised.. so one by one they moved to Pakistan.. those that did move to Pakistan prospered greatly.
My grandfather hailed from elsewhere.. had joined the IN in 45.. opted for Pakistan.. and we've done great.

Do I really want to give a hoot about India's Muslims? No..
These people are doing fine now.. although not as good as their cousins.. but to each their own.
Accomplished in their own right..but they do speak of issues in the community which I reflected upon.

Things have improved since then a LOT..
my mothers uncle is currently part of the comitte on labour.
I cant say.. I spoke to relatives out there..and they were very happy on fb.
The Compound itself looks brand new.. and renovated..
Perhaps there is hope..
After all.. what other person on PDF can say that he has members of family sitting in the govts and armed forces of both India and Pakistan :rofl:

There are lot of families from Lucknow and around Delhi,who stayed back and and did very well. The congress preferred to empower them than the Hindus in politics and business.

I have a friend whose grandfather was a big man from western UP and he refused to go Pakistan and take up abig post there,stayed back in India and had a lot of Zameen,if we had followed the example of Pakistan,all their lands wud have been Kabzaaoed.

But i m the guy who says they should have been kabzaaoed,but sadly they did not.

That is wrong.

Pakistan (as per Jinnah's vision) was indeed planned to be the home of all subcontinental Muslims from Punjab to UP to Assam to Deccan to Tamil Nadu.

According to him, a subcontinental Muslim, whoever he is, is different in thought, action, culture from the Hindus and cannot livewith them. No where does he say Pakistan should be created only for Punjabi Muslims or UP Muslims or any specific group.

Such theories are nothing but revisionist fantasies by those who oppose the likes of Stranded Pakistanis in BD getting Pak citizenship.

Jinnah was a regular british agent.

British wanted India not to be partitioned and exist a federal polity.This would have meant like a continuation of the Muslim Rule with strong federal polities and a perfect ground for US/USSR to run the cold war just like so many countries.

Luckily we got partition and got rid of all the toxic elements of the society,not quite but somehow.

Life will be less painful for you if you learn to accept reality. A part of 'your' nation were the lands of those people who had been living on their lands since hundreds and thousands of years, who labored upon this land to grow food and fought wars and shed their blood to defend it from the aggressors, and if they had not lost wars against the British their land would have never become a part of 'your' nation.

Pakistanis are those who are now the nationals of Pakistan. Those Muslims who migrated from India to Pak and have acquired its citizenship are equal Pakistanis now.

It will be even foolish to imagine that a Pashtun or even Punjabi will ever be ready to share his land with millions of immigrants with whom they hardly share anything except religion. Jinnah never said it and he never asked them to leave India and migrate to their new homeland. Before leaving for Pakistan he left a message for the Muslims of India, he said that since Pak and India are now to separate countries the Muslim of India should be loyal to their country.


It is all timepass. There were many people who migrated from Indian punjab also,why would Lahore and Lyallpur become their land all of a sudden.

Anyway,all gone man,

whatever history might be let us just hope Pakistan can take more Muslims.They are suffering so much here.

Come on Indians where are you??? Tell me after reading that Dalit telling us all that over a billion want to leave India you still think the Quaid was wrong and Mr Azad was correct???

even if a quarter of that leave,we ll be happy,you know which quarter?

indians also need to ask themselves, what Gandhi thinks of modern india, regarding the Quaid - he is a hero - for what he achieved for our people, we have a country of our own.

who cares about gandhi man?

Azad or no Azad, British took over the land that was governed by the mughals, they named it British India, they ruled it for 200 years and as they left they gave independence to Pakistan and what was to become India.

Pakistan gained its independence first and India a day later, Mr Azad and his kind chose their fate and place in history and so did jinnah.

Jinnah wasn't the only person fighting for Pakistan, great like choudry rehmat are brushed under the carpet, being with Pakistan doesn't mean being with jinnah.

My love and loyalty for Pakistan is not because of jinnah as i have my own quaid, people wanted Pakistan and jinnah succeeded if people didn't want it would never happened.

Mr azad i hope can see his people being discriminated against, their place of worships destroyed, houses burnt, men and women set on fire, labelled as dalit converts non martial race. If he saw that he would have changed his name from azad to ghulam.

what were the mughals ruling in 18th century man?

The only muslim kingdoms then were Hyder Ali & Nizam.
 
.
jinnah cannot be compared to kalam azad even in the wildest of imaginations.azad was far ahead of jinnah in everything that is good.
 
. .
Azad never supported two nation theory while Jinnah did....Jinnah was responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians during Partition.....he did not survive long after creation of Pakistan...Allah punished him for his crime

It's on the record incident. The caretaker of Masjid -e-Nabi saw a dream on night of 11 septermber 1948. Prophet Mohammad (P.B.u.H) came in his dream and asked him "Jashan manao" One of my friends is coming to meet me. Care taker asked who is the friend My dear Prophet (P.b.U.H). He (PBUH) said, "It's Jinnah"

so keep your stinking thoughts with you, you moron

jinnah cannot be compared to kalam azad even in the wildest of imaginations.azad was far ahead of jinnah in everything that is good.

Stats speak for themselves. You are a moron who dont even know the history. Go read about 1946 General elections and read who win MAJORITY muslim seats. Your charismatic leader azad congress party or the short sighted Jinnah Party?
 
.
Azad never supported two nation theory while Jinnah did....Jinnah was responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians during Partition.....he did not survive long after creation of Pakistan...Allah punished him for his crime

Are you muslim? Are you not hurting sentiments of those ALL muslims who all voted in all seats for a partition during 1946 election...you need to look it was people wish to go for a Pakistan and all seats in muslim majority area were won by Muslim league who aleardy declared a resolution for partion of INDIA in 1940...

Do you know Jinnah (may Allah bless his soul) was named 'as ambassodor of Unity' by Congress...It was congress and their policies that made him rightly think that partition is inevitable...What Allah do is the best benefit of everyone but we keep crying....I do understand those muslims who were in favor of union (they were thinking different way and they were thinking we muslim will be more united...we can't say those muslims who were in favor of partition or not in partitions were SINNER...they were seeing just having different views of their RIGHTS...WE are the most HAPPY NATION ON THE earth to pray for JInnah but I don't hate A.Kalam Azad (though Jinnah named him 'show boy of congress')...May be our muslim bro KAlam was viewing differently with sincereity for mulsim...like Jinnah was thinking differently and remember that it was muslim majority who voted for Muslim league who already declared partion of INDIA....So people wish was aligned with Muslim league, you can not blame Muhammad Jinnah...please see below how Jinnah was even ready for a federation:
On April 25, 1946, he was offered two alternatives - the Pakistan as it came to be established in 1947 and an Indian Union superimposed on groups of Muslim provinces. Jinnah rejected the first and said he would consider the second if Congress did the same. His own proposals of May 12, 1946 envisaged, not Pakistan, but a confederation. [/B]If pressed he would have accepted a federation. He did so. He accepted the Mission's Plan.

The Mission propounded its plan on May 16, 1946 rejecting Pakistan and plumping instead for a Union confined to defence, foreign affairs and communication and based on three groups of provinces. It was, an "organic" union with enormous potential for growth.

Jinnah accepted it. Gandhi condemned grouping immediately and persisted in the opposition till the end. The Congress professed to accept the plan but so quibbled on grouping as to wreck the proposals.

THE Cabinet Mission's plan of May 16, 1946, envisaged an Indian federation based on three groups of provinces. The provinces were free to secede from the groups in which they were placed by a vote in the first general election after the scheme took effect. But they could not secede from the Union. India's unity was preserved. All they could ask for was "reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution" - a Sarkaria Commission - after 10 years and no more. It would have been open to provinces of Group A (the States which now form the Union of India) to confer on the Union voluntarily subjects beyond the minimum subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communication. Group B comprised Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan and the NWFP. Far from establishing a "weak" Centre, it would have yielded a strong centre for India of today in a federal union with Pakistan, in which India though had a majority, though confined to defence, foreign affairs and communication.

The plan broke down because the Congress refused to accept this grouping formula. It had 207 members in the Constituent Assembly against 73 of the League. In the crucial Group C, comprising Bengal and Assam, it had 32 members against 36 of the League, in a House of 70, with two Independents. Since the League would have had to provide a chairman to work the group, it would have been left with 35 members against 32 of the Congress. How could the League possibly have prevented Assam's secession? Yet it was this bogey which destroyed the last best chance for preserving India's unity.

As late as March 19, 1947 - less than three months before the Partition plan - the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, wrote to the Secretary of State for India, Pethick-Lawrence, that, having met Jinnah recently, Colin Reid, correspondent of The Daily Telegraph "got the impression that he might accept the Cabinet Mission's plan if the Congress accepted it in unequivocal terms". Mountbatten tried to secure that and failed. The Congress preferred India's partition to sharing power with the League in a united India.

In an interview with Jalal in 1980, a Punjab League leader, Mian Mumtaz Daultana, said that Jinnah never wanted a Pakistan which involved the Partition of India and was all in favour of the Mission's proposals. The Cabinet Mission's Plan was wrecked by the Congress as Chimanlal Setalvad rightly held.

The Congress was not consistent on the Partition. On April 2, 1942, the Congress Working
 
.
mafiya bro says:

ALL THE INDIAN LEADERS WHO WENT TO JAILS WERE BECAUSE INIDAN CONGRESS CALLED A MAJOR PROTEST AND STRIKE AGAINST BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND MUSLIM LEAGUE REFUSED TO FOLLOW INDIAN CONGRESS AT THAT TIME BY SAYING THEY WILL REMAIN PEACEFUL AND WILL SOLVE PROBLEMS THORIGH NEGOTIATIONS. SO NOT A SINGLE MUSLIM LEAGUE LEADER WENT TO JAIL BECAUSE THEY REMAIN PEACEFUL


provide e-book links to those neutral history books. The above remain an opinion or conjecture to most , without any source



How can dead people have an opinion?

here is BBC link bro:
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies



It is possible that Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, simply wished to use the demand for a separate state as a bargaining chip to win greater power for Muslims


With the cessation of hostilities, the battalions at the disposal of the government in India were rapidly diminished. At the same time, the infrastructure of the Congress Party, whose entire leadership was imprisoned due to their opposition to the war, had been dismantled.

The Muslim League, which co-operated with the British, had rapidly increased its membership, yet still had very limited grassroots level organisation.
 
.
see i know history very well...i dont read distorted history and believe it to be true..we cannot question the integrity and honesty of kalam...he was a true patriot...winning majority of seats in no way proves someones genuineness...MIM party in hyderabad wins a considerable amount of seats.yet,there is no improvement of muslims which can be attributed to MIM..majority of muslims india are illiterates even today.so,you can imagine the mental condition of muslims in 40s.i was only answering the question who among kalam and jinnah is better.I in no way disapproving partition.I sincerely believe parition is one of the good things happened to india..for your information there have always a been a good number of people even in india who have supported partition and i am one of them.

to add to my previous post these parties which call themselves representatives of muslims(like muslim league and MIM) are the very reasons for the backwardness of muslims..they for some strange reason dont allow muslims to participate with the interests and activities of non muslims...while everyone here in telangana is fighting for a separate statehood these MIM walas are going in the other direction..they are not supporting separate statehood and are mingling hands with andhra capitalists and imperialists(just muslim league supported british)
 
.
There is no comparision between the two. One was a Leader other was a Slave, one teach us to live with pride & honour other teach us to live in slavery. Yes the leader was our great nation's father, Great Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, other one was azad who was not even azad.

Long Live Pakistan.
Pakistan Zindabad
Quaid-e-Azam Zindabad:smitten::pakistan:


I m a newbie

i beg to differ from your point of view . I've been to India my self and we do have our relatives there so i got to stay there for 1 month. so far i had seen The muslims in India are not treated like the way you potrayed as slaves like we treat the hindus in our country.they are much better and doing pretty well in India with all the basic needs and infracture provided to them infact Hindus-muslims Gel up as they share the same language , trend almost same life style dude in way . we are always been given a wrong impression bout indian muslism living condition is worse that the tribes even i use to feel the same once but once i visited India and Seen their living condition they are absolutely fine and they just love their country the same way we love pakistan .
 
.
I m a newbie

i beg to differ from your point of view . I've been to India my self and we do have our relatives there so i got to stay there for 1 month. so far i had seen The muslims in India are not treated like the way you potrayed as slaves like we treat the hindus in our country.they are much better and doing pretty well in India with all the basic needs and infracture provided to them infact Hindus-muslims Gel up as they share the same language , trend almost same life style dude in way . we are always been given a wrong impression bout indian muslism living condition is worse that the tribes even i use to feel the same once but once i visited India and Seen their living condition they are absolutely fine and they just love their country the same way we love pakistan .

Thanks bro. Appreciate your honesty.
 
.
I m a newbie

i beg to differ from your point of view . I've been to India my self and we do have our relatives there so i got to stay there for 1 month. so far i had seen The muslims in India are not treated like the way you potrayed as slaves like we treat the hindus in our country.they are much better and doing pretty well in India with all the basic needs and infracture provided to them infact Hindus-muslims Gel up as they share the same language , trend almost same life style dude in way . we are always been given a wrong impression bout indian muslism living condition is worse that the tribes even i use to feel the same once but once i visited India and Seen their living condition they are absolutely fine and they just love their country the same way we love pakistan .

dude..u r in trouble!!!:no::no:
 
.
it is weird how indians seem to think Mahrana partap WAS A HERO BECAUSE HE NEVER YIELDED to A MUSLIM RULER AKBAR, however, RANA SANGA the man who like A.KALAM.AZAAD believed in "co existence" is hated!!

when the situation is reversed and Jinnah takes on the role of MAHRANA PARTAP he is hated and a traitor like KALAM AZAAD is made a hero.
 
.
You have an opinion and i have an opinion. My opinion will perhaps differ from your opinion - i will respect that. What i wont respect is people diversifying off topic and talking about events AFTER which have no bearing on Jinnah VS Azad.
What i see on this thread is Pakistan praising Jinnah and Indians praising Azad. What i also see is a lot of trolls and excitable chaps not prepared to accept that BOTH nations have issues. Not 1 Indian has come on here to say they have issues - a sense of "our land is perfect - yours aint." If you guys want to live in a shell thinking that - thats fine but dont expect the rest of the world to believe your dellusional state.

Frankly most of the Indians here say that India is doing better than Pakistan. No one is saying that the country is perfect.

Everyone just says one thing and consistently so - We are improving. India was always secular - a good amount of its people were not. And as with time, Indians are getting more and more secular.

Incase you have not noticed, there are fewer riots, fewer communal flare ups in India now compared to the earlier days. So people are assured that they are on the right path. The country is moving towards its ideals -slowly yet steadily- which is what matters to us.

And you know the reason why this happening - because the successive governments in India have all put money behind that one golden thing - education. More and more of this country is getting educated by the decade and at a faster rate than the preceding one.
And with each passing decade, India will get better because of this single biggest factor. People are not as gullible as they were years back.

So yes, riots happened, but since you lot like to follow news you would ALSO have come across something interesting - for the first time in India, people who participated in riots and killed others - have been convicted. It happened for the first time in India - this year itself, the courts convicted people. So India is moving forwards!

I have been on this forum long enough to witness the days when Pakistani members used to gloat that despite India having a bigger economy, Pakistan had a higher per capita income. That ran out a while back.

Today Pakistani members find solace in mentioning the communal riots in India as proof of India not being secular - give it another 10 years, you will find that that point will also have outrun its shelf life.

On the other hand, when you look at Pakistan, you find that it is getting more and more radicalized by the decade. You find intolerance increasing over the years. You find more communal strife in Pakistan now than before.

Lastly the difference in thinking comes at this particular point:

Many of my Pakistani friends have mentioned(repeatedly) that Abul Kalam Azad was a traitor to his people and hero to his people's enemies. I would like to point out that most people in India(read point above about Indians becoming more and secular) consider ALL Indians as his people regardless of their religion or ethnicity. His contributions in many fields has helped Indians. Period.

Abul Kalam Azad is a hero to his people - Indians.

Therein lies the difference between Pakistani members thought processes and ours.
 
. .
MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD​

Born in MECCA ,Started Urdu weekly Al HILAL & Al BALAGH when he was student,within 3 months circulation of Al Hilal reached 26000 copies per week figure which was unheard in Urdu journalism till then, and for this he was arrested by british under press act for consipiring against Raj from 1916 to 1920.


President of All India Khilafat Commititee in 1924 ,led the people to the Viceroy to acquaint him with the feelings of Indian Muslims regarding khilafat . President of Nationalist Muslim Conference 1928.

President of Indian National congress 1923 to 1925 and again from 1940 to 1946 . Interestingly to note when Mr.jinnah said that muslims in free india will not be properly represented the Presidents of the 2 most powerful parties INC & Muslim league were muslim.

Lead the disscusions with CRIPPS MISSION for INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS in 1942 and was instrumental in arranging the disscussion between Mr. CRIPPS and other nationalist muslim leaders Sikandar Hayat Khan (leader of undivided punjab who defeated Jinnah's Muslim in election) ,Allah Bux Soomro(leader of sind who defeated Jinnah's ML), Badshah Khan (defeated jinnah's ML in Kyber).

President of Indian national congress During Historic QUIT INDIA movement for which was arrested from 1941-1946,because he didn't wanted the indian solider Hindu Muslim or Sikh to die in Eroupe's World war.Jinnah was exactly doing what he was told by his british masters(gave full support to use Indian troops).

It was his idea of autonomy to the states in undivided india after independance to resolve the communal issue during BRITISH CABINET MISSION 1946 ,Intrestingly Mr.Jinnah accepted this proposal(proposal of Muslimof the minority problemand said three days after the there could be no fairer solution for muslims than this plan and accepted the scheme.But as we know later he withdraw from his commitment.

So this Showboy (who spent more than decade in prisions)did everything he could for the muslims of undivided India .but as we know his Hindu Muslim unity idea was defeated by the hate spreaded by Jinnah(who didn't even went to jail for single day and pakistani's say he fought british).
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom