Pakistan, Turkey friendship rooted in history: Ayaz

[Joe Shearer]

^^^

I see it now, Joe. I see it now.

@Joe Shearer

I TOLD you. It's classy.

 

[RAMPAGE]

I TOLD you. It's classy.

That it is. But who says you aren't.

@Azlan Haider In form, eh? The 'farmer' is having a "field day"!!!! Great work, really appreciated as always. Thanks for enlightening those of us, who may not be or may not want to be enlightened!

What I find the most absurd is that even JL Nehru has tried to vilify MA Jinnah in his autobiography.

"The enthusiasm of the people outside struck him as mob hysteria. There is as much difference between him and the Indian masses as between Savile Row and Bond Street and the Indian village with its mud huts. He suggested once privately that only matriculates should be taken into the Congress ... [this] was in harmony with his general outlook."

This was a malicious falsehood written of a Jinnah who censured the government in 1925.

"I say it is the greatest stigma on the government of any country in the world to show that after your 150 years of rule, as is the case in this country, you have not given knowledge and light, nay even the three R's, no more than 6 to 7 per cent of the population of this country. Is that going to be your policy? Is that the way you are going to advance India constitutionally and make her fit for self government and for self-defence?" (A.G. Noorani - Jinnah in India's History)

When there was a systematised attempt by both sides of the border to belittle and malign MA Jinnah, it is no wonder that majority of us have grown up with a distorted view of him and his role in history of the Indian sub-continent, perhaps at display by members @Waqkz @Farhan Bohra if I understood them correctly.

One can say, in my opinion anyways, that the aim in India to vilify Jinnah was to affix responsibility for the partition of the country on him, and try to forge a new nation on secular ideals where the fundamental issues, which led to the partition in the first place, could be avoided and yet again, remain unaddressed.

On Pakistan's side, as @Joe Shearer (on numerous previous occassions) and @Azlan Haider have amply illustrated, the effort to undermine Jinnah in a secular Pakistan started right after Pakistan was born, and had the support of the clergy, which emphasised the prominence of religion over nation in direct opposition of MA Jinnah's aim and aspirations for the new state. However, it is worth mentioning that this re-wrting of the narrative especially gained currency under the late Gen Zia-ul-Haq government.

The task of rewriting history books, and I rely on 'Rewriting the History Of Pakistan' by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar when I state the following, started in earnest in 1981, when General Zia ul Haq declared compulsory, the teaching of Pakistan studies to all degree students, including those at engineering and medical colleges. Shortly thereafter, the University Grants Commission issued a directive to prospective textbook authors/writers specifying that the objective of the new course is to

'induce pride for the nation's past, enthusiasm for the present, and unshakeable faith in the stability and longevity of Pakistan'

[University Grants Commission directive, quoted in Azhar Hamid, et al. Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan (Islamabad: Allama IqbalOpen University, 1983), p. xi.]


To eliminate possible ambiguities of approach, authors were given the following directives:

To demonstrate that the basis of Pakistan is not to be founded in racial, linguistic, or geographical factors, but, rather, in the shared experience of a common religion. To get students to know and appreciate the Ideology of Pakistan, and to popularize it with slogans. To guide students towards the ultimate goal of Pakistan - the creation of a completely Islamised State (p. xii-xiii of aforementioned report)

In fulfillment of this directive, modern texts of Pakistani history are centred around the following themes:

1. The 'Ideology of Pakistan', both as a historical force which motivated the movement for Pakistan as well as its raison
d'etre.

2. The depiction of Jinnah as a man of orthodox religious views who sought the creation of a theocratic state

3. A move to establish the ulema as genuine heroes of the Pakistan Movement.

4. An emphasis on ritualistic Islam, together with a rejection of liberal interpretations of the religion and generation of
communal antagonism.


Modern textbooks invariably portray Jinnah as the architect of an Islamic ideological state:

The All-India Muslim League, and even the Quaid-i-Azam himself, said in the clearest possible terms that Pakistan would be an ideological state, the basis of whose laws would be the Quran and Sunnah, and whose ultimate destiny would be to provide a society in which Muslims could individually and collectively live according to the laws of Islam. (Azhar Hamid, et al., Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan, p. 221)

Jinnah began his political career as an exponent of Hindu-Muslim unity and as the leader of the liberal left wing of the Congress. His efforts culminated in the Lucknow Pact of 1916 between the Congress and the League. But when he again led the League almost twenty years later, the call was no longer for unity but for Hindu-Muslim separation. What brought about this transformation? It can not, by any stretch of imagination, be any single act, nor any epiphany which changed his direction.

Khalid bin Sayeed, one of his more respected biographers, gives convincing evidence that in the period 1929-1935 the Congress' intransigence was a major factor that changed him from an 'idealist' into a 'realist' who saw no future for Muslims in a united India.

In his personal life, Jinnah was liberal and Westernised and remained as such. Overcoming the taboos of cross-communal relations, he married a Parsi lady in the face of her parents' opposition - a marriage destined to end in tragic separation and the premature death of his wife. Jinnah maintained his inner secularism even in the seething cauldron of communal hatred following Partition, as is evident from the fact that he appointed Joginder Nath Mandal, a Hindu, to serve in Pakistan's first cabinet. His famous 11 August 1947 speech before the nation is the clearest possible exposition of a secular state in which religion and state are separate from each other:

We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. . . Now I think that we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the state. Ö You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.(M Munir, From Jinnah to Zia p.30)

In an interview to Doon Campbell, Reuter's correspondent in New Delhi in 1946, Jinnah made it perfectly clear that it was a Western style democracy that he wanted for Pakistan:

The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new
nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.(M Munir, From Jinnah to Zia p.29)

In contrast, in Maulana Maudoodi's Islamic state, 'sovereignty rests with Allah' (mentioned by Oscar earlier). Thus, Jinnah rejects the basis for a theocratic state. This is stated even more explicitly in his 1946 speech before the Muslim League convention in Delhi:

'What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not theocracy, nor a theocratic state.' (Jamiluddin Ahmed, Recent Writings and Speeches, p. 248)


@Joe Shearer @Azlan Haider add or correct where I may be off.

@LadyFinger @ebrahym Thought you both might be interested in this thread, where it becomes serious anyways

@Hiptullha Good attempt! But now my troll mode is off. Sorry, won't be able to oblige your ignorant rants anymore. Maybe next time? However, a great attempt!

@SarthakGanguly The friendly 'bigot' is required to comment if any.

@Arsalan Tagging you in case you want to add anything anywhere in the thread. Also (and I must confess here) to show you that am not always in a troll mode, and you are fairly right in pointing me out at times when I go overboard

@Horus

Read up!

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Azlan Haider In form, eh? The 'farmer' is having a "field day"!!!! Great work, really appreciated as always. Thanks for enlightening those of us, who may not be or may not want to be enlightened!

@hellfire

Simple formula:
ignore Waqkz, Farhan Bohra and Hiptullha. Worthless, and drains on one's eyesight and energy.
Follow that *** Azlan Haider. He is deadly accurate and very detailed.
ENJOY the writing of Oscar. #149.
Look at your own note and see how rapidly you have advanced.

A footnote:

Although I am the first to acknowledge what Nehru contributed to free India, especially in terms of setting the conditions for good governance, and for exemplary adherence to parliamentary norms, notwithstanding having a tin ear, like most Indians without a sense of collective working, for the Cabinet concept, he was not comparable as a human being with Jinnah.

Nehru was a rich man's son, and lived on his father's earnings all his life, setting the standard for his daughter and one of his grandsons, and to all his great-grandchildren. Jinnah raised himself through application and intelligence to the heights of his profession, arguing in front of the Privy Council at the height of his powers. He earned millions through his forensic brilliance (I use forensic deliberately, out of admiration, but not to negate or counterpoise his eloquence). Above all, Nehru was mean-spirited.

As a statesman of international renown, a failure who had lofty ideals and lofty objectives.
As a political leader of his own people, a wise though prolix guide.
As a human being, beset by jealousy and a complex.

 

[Nilgiri]

Above all, Nehru was mean-spirited.

I quite noticed this too. It left a really bad taste in my mouth when I read about him in detail past what had been taught to me (by both lovers and haters of him).

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer

NFP just posted this. I wonder if he's a visitor or a member. Just yesterday I was thinking about the possibility of having him here. What a jolly good fellow.

Nedeem sahab, Make yourself known if you're here, Would love to here from you.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1280325

Nah ... He's certainly here.

Awesome write up! @RAMPAGE There were also incidents of rioting, Moplah Riots by Muslim Mappilah Community of Kerala in 1921 being one of the most prominent ones, which have been directly attributed to the passions triggered by the Khilafat Movement.

Such, incidents proved the veracity of MA Jinnah's warnings of the dangers of the movement and brought the religious feelings to the fore, rendering an unified Nationalistic Movement to an obscure background.

If I may, I would like to add another dimension dealt a few years back by @Joe Shearer but nevertheless worth revisiting, and I post verbatim:

The Labour government that came to power in Britain in mid-1945 was willing to grant independence to India but was worried about losing its 60-year-old military base here from which the British controlled the whole Indian Ocean area, including the eastern Middle-East that contained oil wells — The Wells of Power — of increasing importance in war and peace and which Stalin, with his rising ambition after his victory over Germany, the British feared, might seize. In the last two great wars it was from their Indian base that the British deployed Indian and British forces in Iran and Iraq and the British Chiefs of Staff were adamant on keeping a foothold in India. But Atlee, the British Prime Minister, knew that the government of a free India under the Congress party’s rule would neither give them a military base nor join their team against the Soviet Union in the fresh Great Game. What were they to do?

Towards the end of 1945, Field Marshal Wavell, the Viceroy of India, came up with a possible way out of their quandary. After the Congress party had refused to cooperate in the war effort in 1939, unless Britain announced that it would give freedom to India after the war, Wavell’s predecessor, Lord Linlithgow, had encouraged Jinnah to formulate the Pakistan scheme, informing London that Jinnah was in his pocket. “He represents a minority and a minority
can only hold its own with our assistance,” the Viceroy told London. Wavell now suggested that they use Jinnah’s demand to create a separate state in the north-west — not give him all he wanted in the west but territories along Iran, Afghanistan and Sinkiang with the port of Karachi — and Pakistan would cooperate with them on defence matters. On being asked by London to give them a clear picture of the areas that could go to Pakistan, Wavell in a historic dispatch on February 6, 1946, sent a map delineating the boundaries of Pakistan he had in mind, which were exactly the boundaries that Radcliff drew 18 months later.

So, what Pakistan was going to be was already decided in early 1946 and the time between then and August 15 was used by Atlee, Cripps and Wavell and later Mountbatten to make Jinnah accept the smaller Pakistan and the Congress party to accept Partition, while Atlee kept proclaiming from housetops that they were working to preserve India’s unity. All the British maneuvering can be discerned by studying the British top secret files. It is a myth that Jinnah founded Pakistan. President Roosevelt had posted his representative in Delhi after1942 and his dispatches in the US archives also tell us much.

Some of the assessments in the book are also mistaken. To believe that the Cabinet Mission Plan would have resulted in a united India is moonshine. After 10 years Punjab, Sindh and the NWFP had the option to break away on one side and Bengal and Assam on the other side. That would give the League a much larger Pakistan after 10 years and certainly, in the meanwhile, it would fan the flames of communalism to prepare the ground for the above. And what about the princely states? They had the option x\so break away too. So, possibly Hyderabad would join Pakistan and would help reach Tripura and Manipur, which would be swallowed up. The Plan would have balkanized India and Nehru, despite the many mistakes he made, was correct in striking it down.

Jinnah at heart was a nationalist and a secularist. And he remained so for the first 60 years of his life — a long time. Jinnah opposed satyagrah, calling it an extreme programme that would lead to disaster. He was shunned by Gandhiji. And Motilal Nehru feared that this brilliant man would eclipse his son, Jawaharlal. In 1928 Jinnah proposed to convince the Muslims to give up separate electorates — that were preventing Hindu-Muslim political interdependence and unity — suggesting in return that Muslim representation in the Central Assembly be raised from 27 per cent to 33 per cent — a very minor concession compared to the possibility of ending the pernicious separate electorates. But he was pooh-poohed, and virtually driven out from the Congress party.

After the Congress refused to cooperate in the war effort in 1939, the Viceroy sought out Jinnah. The doctors had earlier the same year told him that he had terminal TB. Jinnah had always wanted to be the first in every thing. There are many instances in history of people abandoning their principles to achieve power and glory. So, for him it was now or never. His Pakistan scheme, launching Direct Action — the precursor of today’s terrorism — and mobilizing Muslims against the Hindus, were all in the pursuit of power and glory. He did not believe in what he was doing. After Pakistan had been achieved, he spoke in Karachi advocating secularism. But he quickly retreated when opposed by his followers.

Chagla, who worked with him in his law firm in Bombay, once told me that he was a man of great integrity. But it was tragic that at the end he lost it. And no man can be great without integrity. I also feel sympathy for Jinnah, for his humiliation and suffering.

But at the end of his life he did many bad things, and inflicted incalculable harm. To believe that he was great just because he fought the mighty Congress party is nonsense. Do we call Hitler great because he fought the mighty Allies?

Narendar Singh Sarila, ADC to Lord Mountbatten, 'The Tribune' 19 Aug 2009, on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah


The bold and underlined reddened sentences, are, something that will remain speculative. If I may, I have an alternate view to what has been contended in above towards the end. Perhaps, realising that the national discourse had shifted from nationalism and independence to establishment of religious supremacy, contributed over the preceding two decades by policies as previously enunciated, and also being aware that he may not be around much longer in view of his deteriorating health, maybe, and again I stress, just maybe, MA Jinnah tried to mitigate the effects of a religiously divided nation balkanizing due to the various interplay of forces, rendering the masses to an insecure and potentially grave future if effort to maintain a territorial integrity in a secular framework was continued? Maybe, the demand for Pakistan as a separate homeland to ensure rights and justice for an increasingly insecure Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent was his attempt to forestall a potential civil war in the aftermath of lapse of British paramountcy and his attempts at modelling Pakistan a secular state may, perhaps, in my view, be an indicator of the same?

@Joe Shearer Is there any merit in the above speculation of mine? Again, not as well clued up yet, so asking.

@hellfire

Simple formula:
ignore Waqkz, Farhan Bohra and Hiptullha. Worthless, and drains on one's eyesight and energy.
Follow that *** Azlan Haider. He is deadly accurate and very detailed.
ENJOY the writing of Oscar. #149.

I actually don't ignore anyone, it is interesting to note everyone's posts. The fun starts with guessing their mental age! I told you I respect @Azlan Haider hence my 'axe to grind' with him.

Look at your own note and see how rapidly you have advanced.

Data collation sir. Will actually be able to rattle off things by December. Not there yet.

A footnote:

Although I am the first to acknowledge what Nehru contributed to free India, especially in terms of setting the conditions for good governance, and for exemplary adherence to parliamentary norms, notwithstanding having a tin ear, like most Indians without a sense of collective working, for the Cabinet concept, he was not comparable as a human being with Jinnah.

Nehru was a rich man's son, and lived on his father's earnings all his life, setting the standard for his daughter and one of his grandsons, and to all his great-grandchildren. Jinnah raised himself through application and intelligence to the heights of his profession, arguing in front of the Privy Council at the height of his powers. He earned millions through his forensic brilliance (I use forensic deliberately, out of admiration, but not to negate or counterpoise his eloquence). Above all, Nehru was mean-spirited.

As a statesman of international renown, a failure who had lofty ideals and lofty objectives.
As a political leader of his own people, a wise though prolix guide.
As a human being, beset by jealousy and a complex.

He suffered from a strong super-ego. God bless Freud for giving us this classification so that we can classify Nehru to our satisfaction. It is a shame that Maslow simplified things too much ..... and Freud is increasingly relegated to the background.

If it were not for Freud, I would have written off JL Nehru as a stark, raving. foolish personality.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Awesome write up! @RAMPAGE There were also incidents of rioting, Moplah Riots by Muslim Mappilah Community of Kerala in 1921 being one of the most prominent ones, which have been directly attributed to the passions triggered by the Khilafat Movement.

Such, incidents proved the veracity of MA Jinnah's warnings of the dangers of the movement and brought the religious feelings to the fore, rendering an unified Nationalistic Movement to an obscure background.

If I may, I would like to add another dimension dealt a few years back by @Joe Shearer but nevertheless worth revisiting, and I post verbatim:

The Labour government that came to power in Britain in mid-1945 was willing to grant independence to India but was worried about losing its 60-year-old military base here from which the British controlled the whole Indian Ocean area, including the eastern Middle-East that contained oil wells — The Wells of Power — of increasing importance in war and peace and which Stalin, with his rising ambition after his victory over Germany, the British feared, might seize. In the last two great wars it was from their Indian base that the British deployed Indian and British forces in Iran and Iraq and the British Chiefs of Staff were adamant on keeping a foothold in India. But Atlee, the British Prime Minister, knew that the government of a free India under the Congress party’s rule would neither give them a military base nor join their team against the Soviet Union in the fresh Great Game. What were they to do?

Towards the end of 1945, Field Marshal Wavell, the Viceroy of India, came up with a possible way out of their quandary. After the Congress party had refused to cooperate in the war effort in 1939, unless Britain announced that it would give freedom to India after the war, Wavell’s predecessor, Lord Linlithgow, had encouraged Jinnah to formulate the Pakistan scheme, informing London that Jinnah was in his pocket. “He represents a minority and a minority
can only hold its own with our assistance,” the Viceroy told London. Wavell now suggested that they use Jinnah’s demand to create a separate state in the north-west — not give him all he wanted in the west but territories along Iran, Afghanistan and Sinkiang with the port of Karachi — and Pakistan would cooperate with them on defence matters. On being asked by London to give them a clear picture of the areas that could go to Pakistan, Wavell in a historic dispatch on February 6, 1946, sent a map delineating the boundaries of Pakistan he had in mind, which were exactly the boundaries that Radcliff drew 18 months later.

So, what Pakistan was going to be was already decided in early 1946 and the time between then and August 15 was used by Atlee, Cripps and Wavell and later Mountbatten to make Jinnah accept the smaller Pakistan and the Congress party to accept Partition, while Atlee kept proclaiming from housetops that they were working to preserve India’s unity. All the British maneuvering can be discerned by studying the British top secret files. It is a myth that Jinnah founded Pakistan. President Roosevelt had posted his representative in Delhi after1942 and his dispatches in the US archives also tell us much.

Some of the assessments in the book are also mistaken. To believe that the Cabinet Mission Plan would have resulted in a united India is moonshine. After 10 years Punjab, Sindh and the NWFP had the option to break away on one side and Bengal and Assam on the other side. That would give the League a much larger Pakistan after 10 years and certainly, in the meanwhile, it would fan the flames of communalism to prepare the ground for the above. And what about the princely states? They had the option x\so break away too. So, possibly Hyderabad would join Pakistan and would help reach Tripura and Manipur, which would be swallowed up. The Plan would have balkanized India and Nehru, despite the many mistakes he made, was correct in striking it down.

Jinnah at heart was a nationalist and a secularist. And he remained so for the first 60 years of his life — a long time. Jinnah opposed satyagrah, calling it an extreme programme that would lead to disaster. He was shunned by Gandhiji. And Motilal Nehru feared that this brilliant man would eclipse his son, Jawaharlal. In 1928 Jinnah proposed to convince the Muslims to give up separate electorates — that were preventing Hindu-Muslim political interdependence and unity — suggesting in return that Muslim representation in the Central Assembly be raised from 27 per cent to 33 per cent — a very minor concession compared to the possibility of ending the pernicious separate electorates. But he was pooh-poohed, and virtually driven out from the Congress party.

After the Congress refused to cooperate in the war effort in 1939, the Viceroy sought out Jinnah. The doctors had earlier the same year told him that he had terminal TB. Jinnah had always wanted to be the first in every thing. There are many instances in history of people abandoning their principles to achieve power and glory. So, for him it was now or never. His Pakistan scheme, launching Direct Action — the precursor of today’s terrorism — and mobilizing Muslims against the Hindus, were all in the pursuit of power and glory. He did not believe in what he was doing. After Pakistan had been achieved, he spoke in Karachi advocating secularism. But he quickly retreated when opposed by his followers.

Chagla, who worked with him in his law firm in Bombay, once told me that he was a man of great integrity. But it was tragic that at the end he lost it. And no man can be great without integrity. I also feel sympathy for Jinnah, for his humiliation and suffering.

But at the end of his life he did many bad things, and inflicted incalculable harm. To believe that he was great just because he fought the mighty Congress party is nonsense. Do we call Hitler great because he fought the mighty Allies?

Narendar Singh Sarila, ADC to Lord Mountbatten, 'The Tribune' 19 Aug 2009, on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah


The bold and underlined reddened sentences, are, something that will remain speculative. If I may, I have an alternate view to what has been contended in above towards the end. Perhaps, realising that the national discourse had shifted from nationalism and independence to establishment of religious supremacy, contributed over the preceding two decades by policies as previously enunciated, and also being aware that he may not be around much longer in view of his deteriorating health, maybe, and again I stress, just maybe, MA Jinnah tried to mitigate the effects of a religiously divided nation balkanizing due to the various interplay of forces, rendering the masses to an insecure and potentially grave future if effort to maintain a territorial integrity in a secular framework was continued? Maybe, the demand for Pakistan as a separate homeland to ensure rights and justice for an increasingly insecure Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent was his attempt to forestall a potential civil war in the aftermath of lapse of British paramountcy and his attempts at modelling Pakistan a secular state may, perhaps, in my view, be an indicator of the same?

@Joe Shearer Is there any merit in the above speculation of mine? Again, not as well clued up yet, so asking.



I actually don't ignore anyone, it is interesting to note everyone's posts. The fun starts with guessing their mental age! I told you I respect @Azlan Haider hence my 'axe to grind' with him.



Data collation sir. Will actually be able to rattle off things by December. Not there yet.



He suffered from a strong super-ego. God bless Freud for giving us this classification so that we can classify Nehru to our satisfaction. It is a shame that Maslow simplified things too much ..... and Freud is increasingly relegated to the background.

If it were not for Freud, I would have written off JL Nehru as a stark, raving. foolish personality.

I would agree with you in part, but not about it on the whole. Let me get back; I have something on the fire.

 

[Hellfire]

I would agree with you in part, but not about it on the whole. Let me get back; I have something on the fire.

Sir do clear up on this issue when you can. It is merely my speculation. Will be grateful.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir do clear up on this issue when you can. It is merely my speculation. Will be grateful.

Half an hour? An hour outside?

 

[Hellfire]

Half an hour? An hour outside?

Sir no hurry .. am logging out. Whenever. Week, month will suffice, mere speculation hence your opinion. Only one year will be too long a time though . Very short attention span here.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

@hellfire

Simple formula:
ignore Waqkz, Farhan Bohra and Hiptullha. Worthless, and drains on one's eyesight and energy.
Follow that *** Azlan Haider. He is deadly accurate and very detailed.
ENJOY the writing of Oscar. #149.
Look at your own note and see how rapidly you have advanced.

A footnote:

Although I am the first to acknowledge what Nehru contributed to free India, especially in terms of setting the conditions for good governance, and for exemplary adherence to parliamentary norms, notwithstanding having a tin ear, like most Indians without a sense of collective working, for the Cabinet concept, he was not comparable as a human being with Jinnah.

Nehru was a rich man's son, and lived on his father's earnings all his life, setting the standard for his daughter and one of his grandsons, and to all his great-grandchildren. Jinnah raised himself through application and intelligence to the heights of his profession, arguing in front of the Privy Council at the height of his powers. He earned millions through his forensic brilliance (I use forensic deliberately, out of admiration, but not to negate or counterpoise his eloquence). Above all, Nehru was mean-spirited.

As a statesman of international renown, a failure who had lofty ideals and lofty objectives.
As a political leader of his own people, a wise though prolix guide.
As a human being, beset by jealousy and a complex.

I have rad that Nehru was having affair with British viceroy's wives? Is it true?

@Azlan Haider Sir, one more question? What was the sect of Mr. Jinnah and what was his ethnicity? He was Gujrati, right?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have rad that Nehru was having affair with British viceroy's wives? Is it true?

I REALLY don't want to get into that. It seems so demeaning to all concerned to drag their personal lives into these discussions. And it isn't wives, it's wife. Lady Wavell and Lady Linlithgow were very staid people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Summer:_The_Secret_History_of_the_End_of_an_Empire

Seriously, keep me out of this. I feel embarrassed.

I have rad that Nehru was having affair with British viceroy's wives? Is it true?

@Azlan Haider Sir, one more question? What was the sect of Mr. Jinnah and what was his ethnicity? He was Gujrati, right?

He was a twelver Shia from Kutch. Lived 40 miles away from Gandhi's home.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

The first thing this nation got after the death of Jinnah was "Objective Resolution" of 1949; a perfect antithesis of Jinnah`s vision ...

Once Pakistan was created, Jinnah tried to open the membership of ML to all citizens of Pakistan (irrespective of religion) or alternately dissolve it as it had achieved its goal .. But the opportunists in the ML knew that 70 years old Jinnah with serious health issues was not going to survive long and all such attempts by Jinnah were thwarted by them ... Jinnah who had been a Bombayite , had no similar roots in Karachi, he became helpless. Ajeet Jawed and Yasser Latif have written in detail about this. I will post about it when I have time. Even his 11th August speech was censored.

And after the Death of Jinnah in 1948, there was no one who would oppose them ... The fact is, there was not a single person in ML who could replace Jinnah as an undisputed leader of ML or Pakistan. And this was the first time "Islam" was brought into politics by Muslim Leaguers ( hoping to use it as a political tool) .. "Prostitution of Islam to meet political ends" as President Iskander Mirza described it later !!

Jinnah opening membership to non muslims doesnt prove Jinnah didnt want Islamic socialism for his country.
Islam was brought in by Jinnah himself and his (last) speech on state bank inauguration talks about it. The narrative become the basis for Objective Resolution not petty ML politics.

 

[Nilgiri]

I have rad that Nehru was having affair with British viceroy's wives? Is it true?

From what I heard it was more of a platonic relationship and nothing got consummated etc.

He was a twelver Shia from Kutch. Lived 40 miles away from Gandhi's home.

Yes Jinnah mother tongue was Gujarati. I believe its the same case with member @IceCold as well.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

I REALLY don't want to get into that. It seems so demeaning to all concerned to drag their personal lives into these discussions. And it isn't wives, it's wife. Lady Wavell and Lady Linlithgow were very staid people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Summer:_The_Secret_History_of_the_End_of_an_Empire

Seriously, keep me out of this. I feel embarrassed.



He was a twelver Shia from Kutch. Lived 40 miles away from Gandhi's home.

Thanks....

From what I heard it was more of a platonic relationship and nothing got consummated etc.



Yes Jinnah mother tongue was Gujarati. I believe its the same case with member @IceCold as well.

 

[nadeemkhan110]

I have rad that Nehru was having affair with British viceroy's wives? Is it true?

@Azlan Haider Sir, one more question? What was the sect of Mr. Jinnah and what was his ethnicity? He was Gujrati, right?

Quaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah was a twelver shia or Fiqa-e-Jafria like the majority Shia muslims are
he converted to twelver shia or fiqa-e-jafria from Ismaili shia