JINNAH VS. GANDHI:One against none

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

WTF? I think this guy does not understand the extent of bitterness that Indians hold for Pakistanis and vice versa......

The Indians he met and discussed Pakistan with would probably have been authors, journalists even diplomats maybe, not Indians on internet forums

 

[Umair Nawaz]

If you come out of your text books and look into facts...you would find that Jinnah never wanted this kind of Pakistan which is called Islamic

well i request u like u did, You people come out of YOUR PROPAGANDA THEORIES to reshape the History and Historic Facts which are already established and accept it as it is. Lies, propaganda and changing the historical facts wont do any good 4 u guys. I have always wished prosperity n peace to all the Humankind no matter who they are because as a Muslim its my ultimate duty to atleast wish that if i as an individual cant play any constructive part in it. But by doing such things u may try to undermine yr own weaknesses or mistakes in the eyes of yr next generations to come and then tell them to be in peace but sadly such generations will only gain peace n confidence in yr side of the world not in our Country and our people. Because as the citizen of my Country neither me nor my future generations will accept this

 

[Umair Nawaz]

We must learn the two sides of the coin mate.... Not everyone are perfect...
Here in same pdf, negative articles on Gandhi and nehru were discussed...
Debate must be taken in right spirit.. If u have something to counter the article, pls post it here, and we will discuss it

I believe in only constructive discussion where others can learn from you and likewise u also have a chance to learn. But if talk is based on lies and propaganda it is not the place to learn but to develop misunderstandings n confusion about what u have already know. The point is whatever in this article is written could be true or could not be we dont know bcoz none of them is alive to tell the tail neither we personally know them nor we were alive in that era.We are now living in 21st centuary,we should accept this as it is if we will talk about differences we will generate misunderstandings and they will lead to heat n then divide n rule policy will start again bcoz the enemy of yrs n ours is same we had been fighting among ourselves like fools enough is enough yar come on because all people r not the same some r juzbaty n some r calm and such things will not be accepted among our people bcoz they are our leaders n our heroes so the peace will never come n it will increase the hate in our people's minds.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I believe in only constructive discussion where others can learn from you and likewise u also have a chance to learn. But if talk is based on lies and propaganda it is not the place to learn but to develop misunderstandings n confusion about what u have already know. The point is whatever in this article is written could be true or could not be we dont know bcoz none of them is alive to tell the tail nor we personally know them nor we were alive in that era.We are now living in 21st centuary,we should accept this as it is if we will talk about differences we will generate misunderstandings and they will lead to heat n then divide n rule policy will start again bcoz the enemy of yrs n ours is same we had been fighting among ourselves like fools enough is enough yar come on because all people r not the same some r juzbaty n some r calm and such things will not be accepted among our people bcoz they are our leaders n our heroes so the peace will never come n it will increase the hate in our people's minds.

I accept ur point that past is past and shouldnt be discussed...
Everybody are entilted to their opinions... But history lovers like me, do like to know what happened in the past... There are many accounts available...
If not for discussing the politics and defence, we shouldnt be here at all mate !! I guess we are all educated enough to take criticism

 

[Umair Nawaz]

I accept ur point that past is past and shouldnt be discussed...
Everybody are entilted to their opinions... But history lovers like me, do like to know what happened in the past... There are many accounts available...
If not for discussing the politics and defence, we shouldnt be here at all mate !! I guess we are all educated enough to take criticism

Mr if you are educated enough good for you but you cant say here everybody is same nor just here everywhere in the world.
You are a history lover also gud 4 u but if u will discuss the same version of history that is written by yr authors n in yr History books n u will try to influence or discuss with others who dont believe then consequences will be dire in the long run dont u want that yr people live in prosperity and safely or u want them to live in wars or some people come from another country and make yr biggest city sieged 4 72 hrs.
Brother there is a very thin live b/w success and failure plz recognize that our small mistakes or just act can feed hate amongst our people and if not stopped that could lead to wars, terrorism and Divide. If we want to read history n know the actual facts we must do a proper independent research on it. Try to reach deep into facts n figures to know the truth but plz keep it to yr self bcoz everybody will not be able to digest the truth bcoz truth is ugly.
Thats my advise to you.

 

[Bang Galore]

. This can give no joy to Indians whose best interest lie in help strengthening Pakistan’s democratic roots in whatever way possible.

WTF? I think this guy does not understand the extent of bitterness that Indians hold for Pakistanis and vice versa......

Actually not true. If you remove terrorism from the equation, we have no issues with you even if there is no change in your position on Kashmir. Most of us recognise that you will have your own opinions & make your own decisions on what you think is the way that Pakistan should go. You do not have to be a "twin" to have a civil relationship (actually, the connections between India & Pakistan are largely superficial because after 3-4 generations after partition, we have evolved differently & are simply not as "same' as some like to imagine).

Our best interests do lie in the strengthening of your democratic roots and the economic well being of your country; where I differ from this author as well as many other well meaning people is that I do not believe that we (India/Indians) can actually make a difference, certainly not a substantial one regardless of what we do (within the boundaries of our own national interest). The best we can do is try & insulate ourselves as much as possible from any blow-back & hope for the best keeping our fingers firmly crossed.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

No One is questioning the greatness of Jinnah Mate.... What everyone wants to figure out what did Jinnah wanted for Pakistan.. A secular Islamic country or a Pure Islamic country

If you guys read his most speeches then it seem he wanted the mixture of both. He neither wanted the Talibani Islamic version nor the model of so called secularism practised by congress.

secularist try to interpret some of his speeches to prove that he wanted secular Pakistan while religious guys try to interpret some of his speeches to prove that he wished for Islamic Pakistan. They both are selective in their approach.

Important question is not what quaid Jinnah wanted for Pakistan but what those people wanted whom he represented.

 

[rubyjackass]

JINNAH VS. GANDHI:One against none

JINNAH VS. GANDHI: Roderick Matthews

Matthews blames Congress and Nehru for not forming a coalition ministry with the League after the 1937 elections as broadly agreed under the Lucknow Pact but he recognises that “separate electorates” placed identity before politics and policies.

This part is shown in very poor light by international historians. The stance of Congress after 1937 elections was purely political. There are many instances of such backstabbing and betrayals in history. Also by that time, Muslim League was not worth its salt except for the seat set for them by the British at all negotiation tables. While this betrayal may indeed have pushed Jinnah(he went back to London to practice law for a few months) to demand a separate country(or confederate state whatever), I do not agree with the guys who break this over Congress' head. Congress at that time was highly representative and had very high support in even Muslim masses. If they made a political move, when there was absolutely no demand for Pakistan and when the Muslim League got humbled to its skin, then they caused the partition? That's like saying Jinnah's mom caused partition.

While this led to the Pakistan Resolution in 1940, the two-nation theory, a tactical ploy to achieve parity in all matters, differentiated between nationality and territoriality and hardened into a religiously polarised reality following Jinnah’s call for Direct Action in 1946, leading to the mass Calcutta killings, and reprisals there and in Bihar. While Jinnah claimed “guardianship” over all Muslims in India under the banner of the Muslim League, he ultimately found it difficult to countenance the partitioning of Bengal and Punjab by his own logic. Nor did he have any answer about what to do with the large number of Muslims who would remain in an independent India. This led to the League’s “hostage” theory that made minorities in each country hostage to fair treatment of minorities in the other.

Appropriate name for the so-called two nation theory of Jinnah's(Other people like Iqbal might have different ideas of 2NT, I happen to consider Iqbal's idea as based on the sound ideology of an Islamic state. But this 'hostage' theory was conspicuously tailor made to make Muslims provincial assemblies control the maximum number of Indians).

Matthews believes he was for a united India with two autonomous weakly-federated entities and accordingly accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, keeping Part A and Part C, with a united Punjab and a united Bengal and Assam (with very large minority populations) as part of a viable Pakistan.

Well let's see what Jinnah's intentions were. Pakistan(or the huge mass of Muslim provincial assemblies) would keep (current) India's West Bengal, the whole of North East, Punjab, Haryana(with Delhi in Pakistan, wow), Himachal, just counting British Indian states. There would be a competitive mess with each and every princely state whether it would join Hindu-India or Pakistan-India. Either Jinnah honestly thought that it is possible to run India like this. That would make him so naive, we would be insulting his intellect. So I believe it is a ploy to squeeze the maximum out of the deal. Well, he pushed it too far and got a 'moth-eaten Pakistan'(his own words).
Now who wants Jinnah's version of 'united India'?

But surely that precisely is the fallacy: a less than one-third national minority demanding parity based on faith and not on political support, with only 11 per cent of a highly restricted electorate voting for the Muslim League. The Congress under Gandhi was a mass based party; the Muslim League under Jinnah a feudal/zamindari drawing room party of the upper classes.[/B]

This is the tragedy and one thing which was not appropriately highlighted in other texts. Ayesha Jalal was sympathetic to Jinnah's demand for 'parity'. I cry 'ridiculous!!'. And this was the same guy who did not want separate electorates, apparently.

 

[Icewolf]

I have heard from Indians, Gandhi was a selfish man, and never wanted freedom?

 

[karan21]

I have heard from Indians, Gandhi was a selfish man, and never wanted freedom?

Not even an hour since your ban got lifted and back to trolling loll..