Pakistan seeks recording of Jinnah calling for secular state

[neutral_person]

No, its not wrong. All Muslims who live in Pakistan now were previously Indians. They were a minority in British India. People in current geography of Pakistan opted for a separate country so they got it, many other Muslims from eastern states migrated to the newly created country.

Or in other words, Indian Muslims (who live in Pakistan and Kashmir now) wanted to have a country where they would be in majority and would have able to run the country the way they want.

Let me put out my disclaimer first that I think Pakistan was a good idea and that I am not trying to imply that we should have stayed as the same nation.

I see what you are trying to do here but I respectfully disagree. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis can never be classified as Indian Muslims because they never lived as Indians. They separated from India and formed their own nations before India came into existence. Politically, they formed their own nations because they thought they did not have enough rights, but this was in the British India model. Economically, Muslims were doing very badly in pre-1947, and this was the major (and in many ways sole reason) for the demand for a separate nation.

As you tried to portray, They did not want a separate nation so that they could live as a majority (at least not a major reason); thats something that made its way in Pakistani textbooks in the last 60 years, the major reason was for the economic well-being of Muslims. The fact is that a lot of poor people, usually low-castes converted to Islam and expected that by converting to Islam their poverty would go away.

Now there have been countless debates (many on this very forum) on the topic of partition. It is a very complex topic in my opinion, and you are trying to present a very simplified view of it, and frankly a very wrong view as well. To truly explore the complexity of the 1947 partition, there are many contradictions to keep in mind:
- Most of the support for Pakistan came from present day Bangladesh, who were economically the worst off in the subcontinent
- There were many "secular minded" Muslims living in present day Pakistan/Bangladesh who moved to India, a prominent example being Shah Rukh Khan's grandfather, who was an Afghani living in Peshawar
- What initially was a movement for the financial well-being of Muslims in the subcontinent, then became a political and religious mess of ethnic clashes(1971), and finally the distortion of history in Pakistani textbooks made people believe that Pakistan was created for a variety of reasons other than the original goal of financial well-being.

 

[Safriz]

yes...why the picture showing general zia in a news related to Qaid-e-Azam?

 

[RuheTag]

Let me put out my disclaimer first that I think Pakistan was a good idea and that I am not trying to imply that we should have stayed as the same nation.

I see what you are trying to do here but I respectfully disagree. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis can never be classified as Indian Muslims because they never lived as Indians. They separated from India and formed their own nations before India came into existence. Politically, they formed their own nations because they thought they did not have enough rights, but this was in the British India model. Economically, Muslims were doing very badly in pre-1947, and this was the major (and in many ways sole reason) for the demand for a separate nation.

As you tried to portray, They did not want a separate nation so that they could live as a majority (at least not a major reason); thats something that made its way in Pakistani textbooks in the last 60 years, the major reason was for the economic well-being of Muslims. The fact is that a lot of poor people, usually low-castes converted to Islam and expected that by converting to Islam their poverty would go away.

Now there have been countless debates (many on this very forum) on the topic of partition. It is a very complex topic in my opinion, and you are trying to present a very simplified view of it, and frankly a very wrong view as well. To truly explore the complexity of the 1947 partition, there are many contradictions to keep in mind:
- Most of the support for Pakistan came from present day Bangladesh, who were economically the worst off in the subcontinent
- There were many "secular minded" Muslims living in present day Pakistan/Bangladesh who moved to India, a prominent example being Shah Rukh Khan's grandfather, who was an Afghani living in Peshawar
- What initially was a movement for the financial well-being of Muslims in the subcontinent, then became a political and religious mess of ethnic clashes(1971), and finally the distortion of history in Pakistani textbooks made people believe that Pakistan was created for a variety of reasons other than the original goal of financial well-being.

To an extent I agree with you. The history taught in Pakistan is not 100% unbaised, and surely it would not be 100% unbaised in India too.

 

[SHAMK9]

Secular Pakistan is the way to go

 

[Omar1984]

Its not in Pakistan's interests to be secular. Pakistan has 98% Muslim population, and minorities don't make a majority in any place in Pakistan. Besides, it will cause more chaos, anger, divisions, and violence in Pakistan and that's the last thing we need now.

Do you think western provinces will ever accept secularism? Dream on. Not even the liberal eastern provinces will ever accept secularism.

 

[JanjaWeed]

yes...why the picture showing general zia in a news related to Qaid-e-Azam?

Maybe 'cause present day Pakistan looks more like Zia's than Jinnah's!

 

[Omar1984]

Pakistan can have a good future if it becomes a secular state. Otherwise, it is hard to get out of the chaos.

Pakistan's conservative society will never accept secularism. West of Islamabad is where most women are covered from head to toe, and you are trying to bring secularism there? They will never accept it.

 

[Safriz]

Maybe 'cause present day Pakistan looks more like Zia's than Jinnah's!

more a case of banana journalism....
the writer doesnt know the difference between jinnah and zia...
how authentic...

 

[curioususer]

No, we are talking about the internal situation of Pakistan, i.e. after the creation of Pakistan.

There was only one possibility that Pakistan would not have existed incase there was no rift between Muslims and Hindus in British India. There was enough hatred and problems that Muslims felt the need to have a separete country. Indian Muslims,not Islam itself as a faith, needed a country.

this was majorly worked up by politicians especially the ones who were wanting pakistan. most feel this was done to protect the business interests of muslims against hindus and parsis of that time in british india.

 

[clmeta]

Agreed. A secular, plural Pakistan is going to be much more stronger and difficult for India to deal with.
A theocratic Pakistan busy in internal/sectarian conflicts doesn't get much time to deal with India.

It will do more good than harm if Pakistan becomes secular.

 

[ephone]

The problem for Pakistan is the religion is put beyond the state/law. In such situation, it can only be the hotbed for religious fanatics since those fanatics/extremists will always call for their religious roots to back them up against any possible state/law interventions.

I do not see anyway out for any religious countries, no matter it is muslim or non-muslim ones.

Pakistan can (and hopefully will) have a good future if it can control militancy inside the country, repair the economy and have a better goverment to run the country. The reason of hope is that, now a days young Pakistanis are awaked and are actively following politics and that can make a difference in next election.

Just going secular isnt going to solve all of the problems (and nor is possible suddenely now).

 

[SHAMK9]

Agreed. A secular, plural Pakistan is going to be much more stronger and difficult for India to deal with.
A theocratic Pakistan busy in internal/sectarian conflicts doesn't get much time to deal with India.

im all for secularism but there is no point either, like omar1985 said, it will cause more outrage, violence, chaos, anger, divisions, and violence in Pakistan and that's the last thing we need now.

 

[SamantK]

India played major role in their separation, to avenge their enemy Pakistan.

Your theory has been debunked hundred of times that it was the systematic neglect of east Pakistan and failure to acknowledge a poll outcome which led to the bad blood and on top the bigoted leaders who tried to impose a military rule. India had its part in fighting off the military but saying we took a revenge on Pakistan, i do not see how when India did not ask Pakistani politicians and military to act the way they did.

im all for secularism but there is no point either, like omar1985 said, it will cause more outrage, violence, chaos, anger, divisions, and violence in Pakistan and that's the last thing we need now.

After 60 years it does not matter what they do now, minorities have been suffering and will continue to. One thing which can be done is to not put religion above the country because in the contemporary world no one will give you citizenship based on your religion so the only place for you is your country and so it should be above religion not below it.