Pakistani Desi Liberals

[SarthakGanguly]

The creation of Pakistan had nothing to do with Islam.

 

[sbh02]

Was Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah a "desi liberal" or an Islamist?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

If that is the case, then why didn't Bangladesh become a part of India post 1971?

Because India did not wish so. It would have increased tensions. BD had declared independence long before their liberation.

But here's the thing - IF Bangladeshis considered themselves as Muslim first (as they did in 1946 when they drove away Hindus from the countryside), Bangladesh would never have been formed. Pakistan broke because Islam weakened and ethnic identity and subnationalism took precedence.

Was Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah a "desi liberal" or an Islamist?

A lawyer. A smart lawyer.

While he made speeches for a 'you go to your temples' thingy, he also fought for Ilm ud din and called for Direct Action Day and many other Islamic demands.

In his personal life he was not a good Muslim, but that is not my concern. His politics was largely Islamist in nature. He spoke in more moderate terms in front of a diverse crowd though.

 

[sbh02]

Because India did not wish so. It would have increased tensions. BD had declared independence long before their liberation.

But here's the thing - IF Bangladeshis considered themselves as Muslim first (as they did in 1946 when they drove away Hindus from the countryside), Bangladesh would never have been formed. Pakistan broke because Islam weakened and ethnic identity and subnationalism took precedence.

Bangladeshis always valued their ethnic identity above their religious one, even in 1947. They did consider themselves as Muslims yes, but still, Bengalis did not view themselves as similar to the Muslims of Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP, Punjab.

The reason why they wanted to separate from India in 1947 was because they shared the same fears that living under Hindu dominant India where there would be discrimination against any non-Hindu.

The reason why other non-Muslims also joined Pakistan in 1947 was to escape Hindu authoritarianism and the fear associated with a Hindu dominant India; and the promise of a secular Pakistan as presented by Jinnah.

Because India did not wish so. It would have increased tensions. BD had declared independence long before their liberation.

But here's the thing - IF Bangladeshis considered themselves as Muslim first (as they did in 1946 when they drove away Hindus from the countryside), Bangladesh would never have been formed. Pakistan broke because Islam weakened and ethnic identity and subnationalism took precedence.


A lawyer. A smart lawyer.

While he made speeches for a 'you go to your temples' thingy, he also fought for Ilm ud din and called for Direct Action Day and many other Islamic demands.

In his personal life he was not a good Muslim, but that is not my concern. His politics was largely Islamist in nature. He spoke in more moderate terms in front of a diverse crowd though.

According to Jaswant Singh, Jinnah was a secular person, an Indian nationalist; who was forced to change his ways (from one nation to two nation theory) because of the likes of Nehru, and the likes of the rise of the Hindu fundamentalism and his fears that non-Muslims would be subjugated by the Hindu majority in the Indian subcontinent.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The reason why other non-Muslims also joined Pakistan in 1947 was to escape Hindu authoritarianism and the fear associated with a Hindu dominant India; and the promise of a secular Pakistan as presented by Jinnah.

Boy. You sound exactly like an Indian. You must belong to a minority group in Pakistan.

Non Muslims did not migrate to Pakistan AT ALL. Those who used to stay remained - many corrected this mistake the first chance they got. Which is fine. In Islami Jamhuriyat e Pakistan - it is natural that Muslims will and should call the shots.

According to Jaswant Singh, Jinnah was a secular person, an Indian nationalist; who was forced to change his ways (two nation theory) because of the likes of Nehru, and the likes of the rise of the Hindu fundamentalism and his fears that non-Muslims would be subjugated by the Hindu majority in the Indian subcontinent.

Jaswant Singh had long lost his mind. Most BJP leaders are actually secularists. They won't/don't understand the political dynamics. Jinnah was neither secular nor Islamist.

His politics was Islamist. Otherwise he would not have been able to carve a country based on Islamic demographic majority.

 

[sbh02]

Boy. You sound exactly like an Indian. You must belong to a minority group in Pakistan.

Non Muslims did not migrate to Pakistan AT ALL. Those who used to stay remained - many corrected this mistake the first chance they got. Which is fine. In Islami Jamhuriyat e Pakistan - it is natural that Muslims will and should call the shots.

We had non-Muslims who stayed back in Pakistan in powerful positions. And we still do to this day.

The creation of Pakistan had nothing to do with Jinnah, but the mistakes of Gandhi and Nehru pushed Jinnah to target a new homeland.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The creation of Pakistan had nothing to do with Jinnah, but the mistakes of Gandhi and Nehru pushed Jinnah to target a new homeland.

Not true.

Had it been so, he would have floated a new party and wished to get support of ALL Indians irrespective of their caste or creed. Like Subhas Bose. He also was fed up with Nehru's and Gandhi's dominance. But he did not claim to create a nation of with Hindu majority only.

Jinnah's politics was Islamic in nature and there is nothing to be ashamed about it. It was/is despicable to us, but it should not be to a Pakistani.

 

[sbh02]

Jaswant Singh had long lost his mind. Most BJP leaders are actually secularists. They won't/don't understand the political dynamics. Jinnah was neither secular nor Islamist.

His politics was Islamist. Otherwise he would not have been able to carve a country based on Islamic demographic majority.

Jaswant Singh has been a senior BJP leader, and a very well respected Indian political figure. His statements definitely have a lot of merit to them.

Gandhi's caste politics, and his will to maintain the status quo of caste oppression in India were crucial in how events shaped in the Indian subcontinent.

Not true.

Had it been so, he would have floated a new party and wished to get support of ALL Indians irrespective of their caste or creed. Like Subhas Bose. He also was fed up with Nehru's and Gandhi's dominance. But he did not claim to create a nation of with Hindu majority only

But Subhas Bose was not a non-Hindu.

There are difference of sentiments of a non-Hindu undergoing oppression and discrimination vs a secular Hindu who has differing views from the norm.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Gandhi's caste politics, and his will to maintain the status quo of caste oppression in India were crucial in how events shaped in the Indian subcontinent.

He never played caste politics. He was a status quo-ist (yer right in that point) in matters of faith. He opposed the Communal Award as well.

Jinnah did not have a tiff with him in these matters either. He was inspired by Iqbal (one of the most influential Islamists then) from the late 20s to 30s. He saw an opportunity and as a good and astute lawyer, he jumped at it. The rest is history.

But Subhas Bose was not a non-Hindu.

I mean that Subhas Bose also was sidelined like Jinnah. He did not seek a state for Hindus. Jinnah sought a state for Muslims. There is the difference. Subhas's political inspiration was one of universal equality. Jinnah's was in his words - 'Islamic welfare state'.

Jaswant Singh has been a senior BJP leader, and a very well respected Indian political figure. His statements definitely have a lot of merit to them.

Gandhi's caste politics, and his will to maintain the status quo of caste oppression in India were crucial in how events shaped in the Indian subcontinent.



But Subhas Bose was not a non-Hindu.

There are difference of sentiments of a non-Hindu undergoing oppression and discrimination vs a secular Hindu who has differing views from the norm.

No offense, but are you Shia or Ahmedia Muslim? I have no issues, but just curious. You may choose to ignore this.

 

[sbh02]

[video]

[video]

India could have third partition:

[video]

 

[SarthakGanguly]

[video]

[video]

India could have third partition:

[video]

These are BJP's political gymnastics. Damage control. Please check my previous post.

 

[sbh02]

He never played caste politics. He was a status quo-ist (yer right in that point) in matters of faith. He opposed the Communal Award as well.

He did not do anything to deal with the casteism and the rising Hindu nationalism sentiments in the Indian subcontinent.

Jinnah did not have a tiff with him in these matters either.

He didn't have initially, but did have later on.

He was inspired by Iqbal (one of the most influential Islamists then) from the late 20s to 30s. He saw an opportunity and as a good and astute lawyer, he jumped at it. The rest is history.

You forget that Iqbal was the one who said "Sare Jahan se acha hindustan hamara". He was an Indian nationalist too, but the events that triggered due to the actions (or non-actions) of the likes of Gandhi and Nehru forced them to look at a different option.

I mean that Subhas Bose also was sidelined like Jinnah. He did not seek a state for Hindus. Jinnah sought a state for Muslims. There is the difference. Subhas's political inspiration was one of universal equality. Jinnah's was in his words - 'Islamic welfare state'.

Jinnah's was a Muslim majority secular state, where all religious communities would be given exactly the same rights under a secular constitution. The "perversion" that happened in Pakistani politics doesn't change the facts of independence in 1947.

No offense, but are you Shia or Ahmedia Muslim? I have no issues, but just curious. You may choose to ignore this.

Shia, "Urdu speaking", with plenty of family in India.

These are BJP's political gymnastics. Damage control. Please check my previous post.

How can it be BJP's political gymnastics when he was disowned by the BJP, and expelled from the party for writing this book?

Btw, there are many Western intellectuals/authors who concur with the views Mr Jaswant Singh had on Jinnah. Playing party politics too?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You forget that Iqbal was the one who said "Sare Jahan se acha hindustan hamara". He was an Indian nationalist too, but the events that triggered due to the actions (or non-actions) of the likes of Gandhi and Nehru forced them to look at a different option.

He corrected that and rewrote Chin o Arab humara in 1910. He became an Islamist in 1909-10. Gandhi was not in Indian politics till 1912~16. Nehru came even later.

Gandhi and Nehru played no role in his self Islamization.

Shia, "Urdu speaking", with plenty of family in India.

Oh ok. I see.

Btw, there are many Western intellectuals/authors who concur with the views Mr Jaswant Singh had on Jinnah. Playing party politics too?

Yes. Jinnah was both. he had pork, alcohol. On surface he was a secularist. But his politics was Islamist. He was a lawyer after all.

How can it be BJP's political gymnastics when he was disowned by the BJP, and expelled from the party for writing this book?

Because BJP's core supporters would disown the party otherwise.

 

[sbh02]

He corrected that and rewrote Chin o Arb humara in 1910. He became an Islamist in 1909-10. Gandhi was not in Indian politics till 1912~16. Nehru came even later.

Gandhi and Nehru played no role in his self Islamization.

Not Gandhi and Nehru, but you forget the events that took place post 1857 that divided the Hindu-Muslim communities; and the split there. It was Jinnah who was directly impacted by the actions (or non-actions) of Gandhi and Nehru.

Because BJP's core supporters would disown the party otherwise.

So they would disown the party because they couldn't handle the truth about Jinnah, that it didn't fit the popular narrative?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Not Gandhi and Nehru, but you forget the events that took place post 1857 that divided the Hindu-Muslim communities; and the split there. It was Jinnah who was directly impacted by the actions (or non-actions) of Gandhi and Nehru.



So they would disown the party because they couldn't handle the truth about Jinnah?

None of them were even born in 1857.