rubyjackass
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Don't you understand?! Yes, many Indians(should I say British-Indians?) did not take Jinnah to be a visionary, including Muslims who ended up on both sides of border(Azad and Frontier Gandhi are two). If there was no partition in the first place, why would there be any bloodshed? As I said earlier, Jinnah was asking for too much with too less leverage. He did not like muslims to live under a Hindu majority but expected Sindhi and Punjabi non-muslims to live under a muslim majority. You don't need to be a genius to smell hypocrisy in it. Obviously the non-muslims were going to ask out of Pakistan and Congress would support them. He was basically forcing partition and expecting others to not take any political counter-measures. How wise is this?You are correct that the indian hindus didn't feel he was visionary & hence put road blocks in his way & are responsible for the massacre that followed.
Jinnah wanted an easy and relaxed partition however, with the threat of British walking out anytime & congressman annxeaing the whole of the subcontinent Jinnah gave in and took whatever land he was left. sadly if the british hadn't rushed & nehru & patil weren't in bed with the british the partition could have been easy and no ill feelings would have existed on either side.
And you complain that Nehru and Patel were in bed with British?! This is outrageous! Jinnah wouldn't have earned a cent of land if the British did not favor him. He was their trump in countering Congress, especially during 'Quit India' when the whole country was protesting against British rule. Jinnah gladly let them use him as long as they gave him a seat at the table. I do not think this is immoral or anything, it was after all his strategy. But you are acting like you know nothing about your Quaid. That is unfair to him and his efforts. You have to own whatever he did to achieve Pakistan.