M.A Jinnah on weeky time magazine cover April 22 1946

[scorpionx]

Does that sound secular to you.

No, @INDIC it certainly does not sound secular to any sane mind. But this very same man gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee formed by the parliament on Government of India bill, in 1919.
He was asked "That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?" The reply was "Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes."

My point is if there is one remark to tag him communal, there are hundred others to make him secular. This interview was carried out in 1919, and we know when communal politics started flourishing in India,right?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Can you tell me what kind of secularism he is displaying by calling Hindus as slaves

Read again , he is saying that Muslims are salves for 200 years as well

But IMO Jinnah was an A class hypocrite. A Master Opportunist.

That is your personal opinion based on blind hatred , fed to you since childhood

 

[INDIC]

Read again , he is saying that Muslims are salves for 200 years as well



That is your personal opinion based on blind hatred , fed to you since childhood

British were foreigners, Jinnah is not referring British by their religion Christianity but referring them by their nationality British. By referring Hindu Indian as slaves of Muslim Indians, why kind of secularism do you see, when he is creating division and hate.

 

[M. Sarmad]

By referring Hindu Indian as slaves of Muslim Indians, why kind of secularism do you see

And when did Jinnah say that Hindu Indians are slaves of Muslim Indians ????
& British were foreigners not local , bound to leave India sooner or later , also they did not try to impose their religion on lndians

 

[INDIC]

No, @INDIC it certainly does not sound secular to any sane mind. But this very same man gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee formed by the parliament on Government of India bill, in 1919.
He was asked "That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?" The reply was "Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes."

My point is if there is one remark to tag him communal, there are hundred others to make him secular. This interview was carried out in 1919, and we know when communal politics started flourishing in India,right?

You can see his political career in two parts, the secular one in Congress where was portrayed as ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity while later in Muslim League proposed two nation theory for disunity among Hindus and Muslims. For getting Pakistan he went too far in hatred against Hindus but after getting his Pakistan wanted them to stay in Pakistan under Muslim majority.

And when did Jinnah say that Hindu Indians are slaves of Muslim Indians ????
& British were foreigners not local , bound to leave India sooner or later , also they did not try to impose their religion on lndians

Read the comment you posted.

 

[scorpionx]

You can see his political career in two parts, the secular one in Congress where was portrayed as ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity while later in Muslim League proposed two nation theory for disunity among Hindus and Muslims. For getting Pakistan he went too far in hatred against Hindus but after getting his Pakistan wanted them to stay in Pakistan under Muslim majority.

Yes, his political career, as you have rightly said can be divided into two parts, one secular and another radical. Same way, his career can be divided into further two sections. The first section,where he was a pro-Congressi among the typical radical factions in the Muslim league and the second one being the period (during 1927) he turned to the typical radicals (the shafis) for support due to several reasons which can be discussed further.
If he had wanted a separate country right from the 30's, he might not have gave up the idea of separate electorate in his Delhi Muslim proposals in 1928, after seeing the draft of which both Motilal Nehru and MK Gandhi were enthralled by the new prospects. If he really wanted to divide the country, Lahore resolution would have been more firm in its structural parameters in the 1940's and he would not have accepted the Cabinet mission plan in 1946.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Read the comment you posted.

He just pointed out a historical fact and did not mean to say what you are trying to take out of it

 

[M. Sarmad]

No Sir, not at all. In fact we don't read almost anything about him, but that he is the father of Pakistan. There is no blind hatred.

You know nothing about him , all you know is "he was the father of Pakistan" , your arch enemy !! and for that you should hate him !! (it is quite understandable though)
What else is blind hatred my friend ???

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You know nothing about him , all you know is "he was the father of Pakistan" , your arch enemy !! and for that you should hate him !! (it is quite understandable though)
What else is blind hatred my friend ???

Absolutely not sir. I studied in ICSE board. Till tenth standard we had history - and I did not read anything about Pakistan. My state was also not partitioned during 46-47. You won't believe but no war of India is there is the syllabus! I recommend you read a school history book from India.

PS - Pakistan is NOT my arch enemy.

 

[M. Sarmad]

he would not have accepted the Cabinet mission plan in 1946.

When Congress also accepted the proposal on june 25 1946 , The disappointed Lord Wavell wrote :

"The worst day yet...Congress has accepted the statement of 16 May...Cripps having assured me categorically that the Congress would never accept the statement of May 16th. The Congress manoeuvres have now put us in a very difficult position. Both with Mr. Jinnah and the formation of an Interim Government.... Unless we decide that the Congress is dishonest, as it is in fact, and refuse to regard it an acceptance." [Wavell. p. 304].

From its acceptance upto its rejection , a lot remains unanswered . and sincerity of all three participants is doubtful

PS - Pakistan is NOT my arch enemy.

Can you say the same about majority of Indians as well ??

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Can you say that on behalf of the majority of Indians ??

I don't represent all Indians. Pakistan does not figure in our discussion among friends, colleagues etc at all. Only time I talk about Pakistan is when I go to my home town or here. Nobody needs an enemy when they have got this -

 

[M. Sarmad]

I don't represent all Indians. Pakistan does not figure in our discussion among friends, colleagues etc at all. Only time I talk about Pakistan is when I go to my home town or here. Nobody needs an enemy when they have got this -
View attachment 13895

Are you a NaMo fan ?

 

[karan.1970]

Can you say the same about majority of Indians as well ??

90% of Indians would probably wont even hear or say the word Pakistan more than once in an year

 

[jaibi]

The notion that Quaid, M.A. Jinnah, was the sole harbinger, along with the ML, of the partition of South Asia is just another stone in the revisionist history that we are just beginning to make. In actuality, the partition was caused by the culmination of our historical forces (South Asia has seldom seen unity and did not effectively evolve nationalism prior to British rule in her political philosophy). The British more or less moulded our situation to their advantage and we Asians still refuse to see that, and that, btw, also spills in to this day: Sino-India relations can improve in both nations realise and effectively curb the third player: US.

We were all duped. That's that.

 

[M. Sarmad]

90% of Indians would probably wont even hear or say the word Pakistan more than once in an year

What do you want to say ? 90 % of your people do not watch tv ?? Pakistan , ISI and Hafiz Saeed are surely discussed more than once in a year on your news