Jinnah Was Right

[Mutakalim]

Jinnah was right and Lanat on secularism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And what makes you think that the military would have not had muslim soldiers/officers. In an undivided India, muslims would have had atleast 30-40% of proportional participation in Armed Forces, So would have been the case with Central Government. A central government wouldn't have survived without muslim population/muslim leaders support. And with constant cross migrations, present day Pakistan would have had larger land mass than it is presently. You essentially would have had a civil war at some point of time but present day Pakistan and Bangladesh were always safe centres for muslims. Only the muslims in present day Indian mainland would have been vulnerable. So you lost out on Kashmir, possibly good part of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab. Agreed that Kashmir is an issue which has consumed both our countries.

If the military was disciplined, as it is now, most Muslim soldiers would have likely followed orders. You might have had desertions but most military equipment would still be under the control of the Center so a Muslim uprising would still be on the losing end. And given the situation that occurred in Punjab with the Khalistan movement and what is currently occurring in J&K, 'safe haven' would be meaningless in terms of the hardships faced by the Muslim population.

There is no good scenario that would have resulted from a united India in 1947. It's time Indians agree, accept that Jinnah was right and move on. Focus on resolving the J&K dispute in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris (plebiscite) - you don't build nations on the barrel of a gun - the people either willingly join India or they should be allowed Independence or to become a part of Pakistan.

Jinnah was right and Lanat on secularism.

There is nothing wrong with secularism in principle - Islam itself espouses many secular beliefs in terms of allowing people freedom of religion, equal rights and justice for all regardless of faith, race or language.

 

[Mutakalim]

There is nothing wrong with secularism in principle - Islam itself espouses many secular beliefs in terms of allowing people freedom of religion, equal rights and justice for all regardless of faith, race or language.

For me, the separation of state and religion is known as secularism. And as far as I know, the term secularism was coined for the same purpose. Are you saying that Islam espouses the separation of state and Deen? Or in other words, are you trying to say that state is not the concern of Islam? Or Islam disassociate itself from the matters of state.

Secondly, freedom of religion and justice for all citizens are Islamic principles. We dont need any foreign ideology to accept or adopt these ideals.

 

[The_Showstopper]

If the military was disciplined, as it is now, most Muslim soldiers would have likely followed orders. You might have had desertions but most military equipment would still be under the control of the Center so a Muslim uprising would still be on the losing end. And given the situation that occurred in Punjab with the Khalistan movement and what is currently occurring in J&K, 'safe haven' would be meaningless in terms of the hardships faced by the Muslim population.

There is no good scenario that would have resulted from a united India in 1947. It's time Indians agree, accept that Jinnah was right and move on. Focus on resolving the J&K dispute in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris (plebiscite) - you don't build nations on the barrel of a gun - the people either willingly join India or they should be allowed Independence or to become a part of Pakistan.

So, you are telling me that muslim soldiers will massacre their own kiln because hindu leadership(Presumably) would order so. Military equipment would be at locations based on threat perception. So you would have had atleast 2 locations with considerable military assets in muslim majority geographical locations, one in West Pakistan and one in Bangladesh, but then again it depends on threat perception. Sikhs just constitute 1-2% of Indian population, so is the case with Kashmiris. I think you should look into the decision of Partition with an open mind which also involves questioning Jinnah.. Though he had good intentions but the aftermath only made Hindu India stronger. Let me summarize all these arguements by the following statement. In a conventional war, India can think of attacking Pakistan and occupying it but all Pakistan can do is defend against Indian agression, you can't go all out and occupy whole of India. That is the ground reality, post partition and you have to live with it.

 

[Kabira]

Very few as of now(27 to be precise), that comes around 5%. But they have never won more than 50 seats in all these years. Indian muslims are a scattered lot, so they aren't many muslim majority constituencies.

lol in 1980 muslim made 9% and in 2019 election 2%.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For me, the separation of state and religion is known as secularism. And as far as I know, the term secularism was coined for the same purpose. Are you saying that Islam espouses the separation of state and Deen? Or in other words, are you trying to say that state is not the concern of Islam? Or Islam disassociate itself from the matters of state.

Secondly, freedom of religion and justice for all citizens are Islamic principles. We dont need any foreign ideology to accept or adopt these ideals.

Let me rephrase - Islam espouses many principles that secularism does as well, not that Islam IS secular.

Islam calls for freedom of religion, equality and justice for all regardless of faith, race, gender etc. Secularism does the same.

Islam calls for these within the ambit of faith, that these values are a part of religion - Secularism calls for these by officially separating religion from government.

Both Islam & secularism can be manipulated and distorted - Islam has been manipulated in various societies to justify inequality & discriminatory treatment. Secularism has been manipulated to justify discrimination against religion & those who practice it.

Whether we claim that our society is Islamic or secular, I think we can agree that the basic principles of freedom of faith & equality and justice for all are universal principles essential for a society to flourish.

 

[God Parshuram]

Not really. Its just muslims can not co exist with hindu terrorists

But the problem is that Muslims couldn't live with Muslims. 20 crore Muslims still lives with Hindus.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So, you are telling me that muslim soldiers will massacre their own kiln because hindu leadership(Presumably) would order so.

In a disciplined army, yes. And the government could always utilize primarily non-Muslim soldiers or para-military forces if need be. Sikh's were involved in massacring Sikhs in Punkab were they not?

Military equipment would be at locations based on threat perception. So you would have had atleast 2 locations with considerable military assets in muslim majority geographical locations, one in West Pakistan and one in Bangladesh, but then again it depends on threat perception. Sikhs just constitute 1-2% of Indian population, so is the case with Kashmiris. I think you should look into the decision of Partition with an open mind which also involves questioning Jinnah.. Though he had good intentions but the aftermath only made Hindu India stronger. Let me summarize all these arguements by the following statement. In a conventional war, India can think of attacking Pakistan and occupying it but all Pakistan can do is defend against Indian agression, you can't go all out and occupy whole of India. That is the ground reality, post partition and you have to live with it.

It doesn't matter where the equipment is, it matters who controls it, and so long as the military is disciplined, the central government will control the equipment by virtue of controlling the military.

Hindu nationalism's rise in India is India's fault, much like Pakistan's religious extremism is Pakistan's fault. The best way to have proven Jinnah wrong was in fact for India to exist peacefully with Pakistan, embrace values of self-determination (which was the reason for India & Pakistan to get independence from the British after all) for J&K. End conflict and allow the two countries to co-exist & cooperate.

India was a petty, greedy, insecure and expansionist State in 1947 and it is a petty, greedy, insecure and expansionist State today.

 

[The_Showstopper]

lol in 1980 muslim made 9% and in 2019 election 2%.

27 divided by 545 is around 4.9%, not 2%...

Anyways I already said that Indian muslims are a scattered lot.

 

[POTTER]

Iss behs ka kuch haasil nahi hai. Kismat ny jo chaha wo gaya aagy bhi jo kismat mein likha hga wohi hoga.

 

[The_Showstopper]

In a disciplined army, yes. And the government could always utilize primarily non-Muslim soldiers or para-military forces if need be. Sikh's were involved in massacring Sikhs in Punkab were they not?

No, they were not, Sikhs were pretty dominant in Punjab and they infact killed many a Hindus, Sikhs were massacred in Delhi and surrounding areas which is a Hindu majority region.

It doesn't matter where the equipment is, it matters who controls it, and so long as the military is disciplined, the central government will control the equipment by virtue of controlling the military.

And here you are assuming that Central Government of a country whose 40% population is muslim wouldn't have had any muslim presence midst them? Are you telling me that a citizenship amendment bill, NRC etc would have had the same overwhelming support for the Central Government had their been muslim leadership in the central government. I already showed you that muslims had a fair share(proportional) in politics prior to partition, same would have been the case even now with United muslim front...

 

[Kabira]

But the problem is that Muslims couldn't live with Muslims. 20 crore Muslims still lives with Hindus.

Why NE states are up in arms about Bengali hindus? Not everyone can afford luxury of being hundreds of million. No one want to see their demographics of the land changed overnight in the name of religion and run over by overpopulated ganges. Hence two nation theory was wrong but it served its purpose. It was proven wrong in 1971. Its BS theory anyway as it talk about hindu and muslim being different race, like if religion had anything to do with race or culture.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Iss behs ka kuch haasil nahi hai. Kismat ny jo chaha wo gaya aagy bhi jo kismat mein likha hga wohi hoga.

Makes sense but shouldn't your academics study, research on advantages and the disadvantages of partition. Aise lagta ka hai ke Pakistan me partition ko ghalat bataana bahot bada jurm hai(Which is understandly so)

Why NE states are up in arms about Bengali hindus? Not everyone can afford luxury of being hundreds of million. No one want to see their demographics of the land changed overnight in the name of religion and run over by overpopulated ganges. Hence two nation theory was wrong but it served its purpose. It was proven wrong in 1971.

That's a fair assesment..

 

[Chhatrapati]

Jinnah was right, but he could only lay the foundation and he wasn't alive long enough to really cement certain principles into the constitution. What was done after Jinnah is our fault - that doesn't take away from the fact that Jinnah was correct (he absolutely was) it points to the failure on the part of Pakistanis after him to follow through with the vision he had. But just because there have been failures so far doesn't mean that Pakistanis give up. A nation-state is always a work in progress, there is always room for improvement and that evolution and improvement will continue across generations.

Jinnah cannot live forever to watch over whether your leaders make or break, how could a nation who was the favorite of the west right after it's inception could go down this path? Jinnah lived long enough to set things right. You don't need a commentary on your history, at least from me and you certainly know from the path you're currently in where you will be.

40% only works if all 40% can actually vote together - one third of that 40% is within modern India and we can see how many seats in the LS Muslims have. And yes, outside of 'Muslim nationalism' (which would result in demands of significant autonomy, that Nehru rejected, or independence) a single political party would not have been able to unify the Muslim vote. So the end result is that the Muslim vote, splintered into different groups, would not have had anywhere close to the impact that the so called "40% Muslim population' advocates claim.

Jinnah saw the writing on the wall and thank god for that.

Exactly why I asked didn't you guys, at least 90%, voted together to form Pakistan? If that much people would want a country, they surely can vote en masse for a particular party that would keep Hindu nationalists out.
Hindus are far more secular in their views, that's why you don't have a single "Hindu Nation" despite becoming majority in three countries. The current ruling government can at best be described center right in their political views.

Jinnah was correct - it's already been proven. Pakistanis want nothing to do with India. Enjoy your country under the rule of a genocidal bigot.

Going by that logic, we could call the one who is responsible for direct action day as a genocidal begot. That would perfectly make sense for Bengalis.

Divisions are created when the union itself is an unnatural one - are you saying that the Indian Union is such a weak and artificial one that granting an exception to J&K because of its unique status (disputed territory pending implementation of UNSC Resolutions) would destroy India? If India is that weak that it cannot survive without coercing minorities into allegiance at the barrel of a gun, then it deserves to disintegrate.

I don't need to prove to a Pakistani, the strength of Indian union, we are not the one who couldn't keep the Union for a mere 50 years after partition and since 47 our area only increased.
Historically, India is very strong and ruthless in keeping itself together. If peace comes with barrels of gun then that's the way it is going to be and both time and money is on our side. The only ones fomenting trouble are now running to places to get rid of being tagged for their notoriety by UNSC and FATF.

The UNSC Resolutions have both India & Pakistan as parties to the dispute and as signatories to the UN Charter both States are committed to implement them. The Indian government, after passage of the UNSC Resolutions, repeatedly committed to implement the resolutions and specifically the requirement of a plebiscite, so that is right there an international agreement/commitment made by India on the status of J&K and the means to resolve the dispute.

Sure sure... We didn't sell our territory to a third country. Did we? Where did UNSC resolution go when you sold out parts of valley to China? Maybe for Pakistan, China is bigger than UN. UNSC, plebiscite are now irrelevant since we signed the bilateral treaty.

And please point out where exactly the expiration date of Article 370 is listed. Did the duly elected representatives of the J&K legislature vote on the repeal of 370? This was a unilateral revocation of autonomy by an occupying power.

I thought you didn't recognize J&K legislature. Anyway, the legislature was dissolved which granted power to the President (and Governor) to act on it. Was it legal? Yes.

Kashmiris are not Indians, and more and more of them will refuse to be so long as India treats them as property that it can steal/occupy at the barrel of a gun. Like I said before, nations are formed when the residents of said nations willingly enter into a compact to be part of that nation. Forcing allegiance at the barrel of a gun, as India is doing in J&K, is not nationhood - it is plain and simple fascist thuggery & criminal activity.

Yeah you wish. You tried twice to take Kashmir by force, tell me why did you fail twice? It was the same Kashmiris whom you say, hate India, holding by barrel of gun, helped us keep you at bay. By providing intelligence, and by not listening to Pak sponsored cartoons to take up arms. Why the valley was peaceful during Indo Pak skirmishes?

Nations are not formed through plebiscites asking do you want to join union or not. Almost all nation states in the world are formed as a result of conflicts. Be it barrel of gun or swords.

Any REAL evidence? Not indi-manipulated indi-pedia...............

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PAK
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IND

 

[Kabira]

Makes sense but shouldn't your academics study, research on advantages and the disadvantages of partition. Aise lagta ka hai ke Pakistan me partition ko ghalat bataana bahot bada jurm hai(Which is understandly so)

That's a fair assesment..

India is essentially ethnic cleansing minority states with ideal Indian which is hindu from ganges. NE India will be run over by Bengali hindus. Punjab will be UP, Bihari state in few decades. Article 370 removal was done for ethnic cleansing. Now BJP is talking about Kerala.

Fight back against ethnic cleansing will be seen as terrorism and full state force will be used. And now after this bill, India is no longer secular even on paper.