Question About Jinnah

[Omar Al-Deek]

There is more chance of Pakistan joing Brazil, Germany and Italy all in one go to become one nation than us EVER being part of india........

I don't think that Pakistan joining with Brazil and Germany is a great idea.

However, the idea of Pakistan forming a united state with Brazil sounds very intriguing. I think you have to admit that a joint Pakistani-Brazilian state would be very interesting.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Assalam alaikum brother,

You have some erroneously optimistic ideas of India which can only be described as romanticism.

Reality is that Hindu masses of India keep voting in BJP precisely because they believe RSS can teach Muslims in India and Pakistan/Kashmir a lesson.

Nehru himself was a Hindu majoritarian.

Please watch the movie Jinnah starring Christopher Lee. It has the Pakistani view of our founder, may Allah swt have mercy on him.

 

[Jackdaws]

I see a lot of people here talking about Nehru. Nehru was much junior and younger to Jinnah - precisely why Gandhi picked him. He didn't have much say till Patel died. Nehruvian India starts in 1950.

Yes, not much difference between Muslim League and RSS in terms of thought. But leadership matters. Jinnah was educated and articulate and also seemed to respect other faiths. So useless to compare him to "Entire political science" degree holder Modi. A better comparison would be to Vajpayee.

 

[peagle]

I want to be clear that I am not attacking Jinnah- I am looking for a response to a line of thought regarding Jinnah.

As I understand it, there is a line of thought that claims Modi is a Hindu Jinnah, BJP is pushing for "Hindu Pakistan"- I think this is a line of thought that is associated with India's Congress party.

Narendra Modi is India's Hindu Jinnah, following two-nation theory: Former Assam CM Tarun Gogoi

GUWAHATI: Calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi India's "Hindu Jinnah", former Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi on Monday accused him of following the

www.newindianexpress.com

Shashi Tharoor kicks up row with 'Hindu Pakistan' jibe

Congress, however, disapproves of his comment; BJP calls it “extraordinary” as “it is an attack on the Indian democracy and Hindus.”

www.thehindu.com

I want to be very clear that I am not endorsing that line of thought. I honestly don't know that much about Jinnah. I think we may have some Jinnahologists here who can respond to this line of thinking and I would like to know how this line of theory can be responded to in a way that is pro-Pakistan.

Myself, I don't really know much about Jinnah so I am wondering how people who are better informed can respond to this claim. Instead of trying to articulate a response myself on the basis of a very limited knowledge, I would like to know how people who have studied Jinnah can respond to the claim.

Myself- I think many people sacrificed a lot so there can be a Pakistan, I respect the Pakistani nation and people and I respect Pakistan's right to independence. If Pakistanis woke up tomorrow and said they wanted to rejoin India, I would respect that. But I don't think that will happen anytime soon (possibly not in a 100 years, possibly not in a 1,000, possibly never- Allah knows best) and I think Pakistan has a right to independence based on the will of the Pakistani people. They have a right to self-determination and so I respect the will of the Pakistani people and I think the will of the Pakistani people has to be respected.

First I want to say that I appreciate the thoughtfulness in which you raised your question, I can sense your genuine intention to learn.

Part of the answer is already in your statement, it is just a case of how facts are recognised. Indians have created, and the world has bought into this false argument of a historical Indian nationhood, because no-one or very few have challenged it so far, it has been blindly accepted.

The whole argument is based around that historical Indian nationhood, when you take that away, all their attacks and claims fall apart. India was never a nation, nor a country, it has dozens of large ethnic groups and hundreds of smaller ones, much like Europe. It was a region not a nation. Europeans share culture, religion, history, arts, music, types of food, intermarriage among royalty, the ideas of liberalism and democracy an so many examples that are central to a European identity. But they do not claim a historical European nationhood.

Similarly people of South Asia share a number of the above mentioned practices, but Europeans do not call themselves a nation, because it is false, similarly that claim to an Indian nation cannot be claimed because it has never existed. I can go into great details but I think my point is made.

It is in the context of the above information, this argument about and against Jinnah or Pakistan is played, and if you answer it in the manner they construct the question, it would mean you are accepting their fantasy of an historical Indian nationhood, it is simply false, it is a fantasy which they keep repeating.

I hope I have answered your query with a fresh perspective, if you would like me to expand on any aspects, please let me know and I shall try my best to answer.

 

[peagle]

I see a lot of people here talking about Nehru. Nehru was much junior and younger to Jinnah - precisely why Gandhi picked him. He didn't have much say till Patel died. Nehruvian India starts in 1950.

Yes, not much difference between Muslim League and RSS in terms of thought. But leadership matters. Jinnah was educated and articulate and also seemed to respect other faiths. So useless to compare him to "Entire political science" degree holder Modi. A better comparison would be to Vajpayee.

What history have you been reading, your statement is fantastical.

Nehru was a leading figure in the congress, because his father was, much before Gandhi, Nehru just followed in his fathers footsteps. Nehru had extra marital relations with Edwina, Mountbatten's wife. And, was extremely close to lord Mountbatten, who showed him the new boundary line between India and Pakistan before it was made public, that's special privilege.

There is a world of difference between RSS and Muslim league, they do not even belong on the same planet, you are a nutcase if you think there are similarities.

 

[peagle]

But yes Modi is making India Pakistan of 1977 to 1988

Pakistan of 1977 to 1988 never went about killing, lunching and murdering its minorities on the streets, Churches and Mandirs were not burnt to the ground, that is a poor comparison.

What has been happening India, especially over the last few decades does not come close to anything that has happened in Pakistan.
People only keep mentioning the last 10 years of India because social media has bought everything to attention, but, please remember, this has been going on for far longer.

India has had thousands of communal, caste and religious riots over the last 70 years, Pakistan barely a few.

 

[peagle]

Assalam alaikum brother,

You have some erroneously optimistic ideas of India which can only be described as romanticism.

Reality is that Hindu masses of India keep voting in BJP precisely because they believe RSS can teach Muslims in India and Pakistan/Kashmir a lesson.

Nehru himself was a Hindu majoritarian.

Please watch the movie Jinnah starring Christopher Lee. It has the Pakistani view of our founder, may Allah swt have mercy on him.

Bro I do not like the start of that movie, it starts with the basis of why India was divided, still implying the historical unity of India, I was shocked at such lazy interpretation. We are indeed stupid.

 

[Omar Al-Deek]

Assalam alaikum brother,

You have some erroneously optimistic ideas of India which can only be described as romanticism.

Reality is that Hindu masses of India keep voting in BJP precisely because they believe RSS can teach Muslims in India and Pakistan/Kashmir a lesson.

Nehru himself was a Hindu majoritarian.

Please watch the movie Jinnah starring Christopher Lee. It has the Pakistani view of our founder, may Allah swt have mercy on him.

Wa alaikum salaam- I honestly don't know very much about Nehru. As someone mentioned, it's a little difficult for me to understand the region due to language barrier. Insha'Allah I will get to know things better.

I have no particular comment on Nehru and I want to be fair and look into the subject more before I say anything definitive on him.

I appreciate the movie recommendation and I will try to watch it insha'Allah so I can get better understand things.

As it is, I am very hesitant when it comes to what I'm not very familiar with. Look at the US in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan- I am fascinated with history and I love to learn but I also am aware that there are dangers of getting involved in things as a foreigner. Even Che Guevara was at a bit of a disadvantage during the Cuban Revolution due to him being an Argentinian and his fellows being Cuban. In Bolivia this same factor played a role in him getting killed. Conflict is a very delicate matter like is surgery. One has to be very careful, to really know what they're doing and to ensure that they only make a cut in the correct place.

Regardless of all else however, I consider any Muslim, anywhere to be my brother and I very much respect the pan-Islamic stance that I believe has historically characterized the Muslims of South Asia and still does today (I cite Pakistan's consistent support of Palestine as an example).

 

[Omar Al-Deek]

First I want to say that I appreciate the thoughtfulness in which you raised your question, I can sense your genuine intention to learn.

Part of the answer is already in your statement, it is just a case of how facts are recognised. Indians have created, and the world has bought into this false argument of a historical Indian nationhood, because no-one or very few have challenged it so far, it has been blindly accepted.

The whole argument is based around that historical Indian nationhood, when you take that away, all their attacks and claims fall apart. India was never a nation, nor a country, it has dozens of large ethnic groups and hundreds of smaller ones, much like Europe. It was a region not a nation. Europeans share culture, religion, history, arts, music, types of food, intermarriage among royalty, the ideas of liberalism and democracy an so many examples that are central to a European identity. But they do not claim a historical European nationhood.

Similarly people of South Asia share a number of the above mentioned practices, but Europeans do not call themselves a nation, because it is false, similarly that claim to an Indian nation cannot be claimed because it has never existed. I can go into great details but I think my point is made.

It is in the context of the above information, this argument about and against Jinnah or Pakistan is played, and if you answer it in the manner they construct the question, it would mean you are accepting their fantasy of an historical Indian nationhood, it is simply false, it is a fantasy which they keep repeating.

I hope I have answered your query with a fresh perspective, if you would like me to expand on any aspects, please let me know and I shall try my best to answer.

So any talk of dividing India therefore is already on a wrong track because the question includes a false assumption of India constituting a single nation rather than actually constituting multiple nationalities?

That is a very interesting viewpoint. You are right that the underlying assumption does tend to go unchallenged. No way am I an India expert but I think it's definitely a viewpoint worth looking into.

 

[Omar Al-Deek]

Bro I do not like the start of that movie, it starts with the basis of why India was divided, still implying the historical unity of India, I was shocked at such lazy interpretation. We are indeed stupid.

Besides that criticism, do you think the Jinnah movie is accurate? I've heard about the Muhammad Jinnah movie before but I haven't seen it yet.

That one I want to watch and I'd like to see one of the movies on Tipu Sultan as well. I heard there was an Pakistani one and an Indian one and I was told the Indian one had some inaccuracies.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Wa alaikum salaam- I honestly don't know very much about Nehru. As someone mentioned, it's a little difficult for me to understand the region due to language barrier. Insha'Allah I will get to know things better.

I have no particular comment on Nehru and I want to be fair and look into the subject more before I say anything definitive on him.

I appreciate the movie recommendation and I will try to watch it insha'Allah so I can get better understand things.

As it is, I am very hesitant when it comes to what I'm not very familiar with. Look at the US in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan- I am fascinated with history and I love to learn but I also am aware that there are dangers of getting involved in things as a foreigner. Even Che Guevara was at a bit of a disadvantage during the Cuban Revolution due to him being an Argentinian and his fellows being Cuban. In Bolivia this same factor played a role in him getting killed. Conflict is a very delicate matter like is surgery. One has to be very careful, to really know what they're doing and to ensure that they only make a cut in the correct place.

Regardless of all else however, I consider any Muslim, anywhere to be my brother and I very much respect the pan-Islamic stance that I believe has historically characterized the Muslims of South Asia and still does today (I cite Pakistan's consistent support of Palestine as an example).

You can watch the movie, it is a good introduction to Pakistan's viewpoint of partition and the intransigence of Hindu majoritarian leaders to Muslims' concerns.

Besides that criticism, do you think the Jinnah movie is accurate? I've heard about the Muhammad Jinnah movie before but I haven't seen it yet.

That one I want to watch and I'd like to see one of the movies on Tipu Sultan as well. I heard there was an Pakistani one and an Indian one and I was told the Indian one had some inaccuracies.

Get back to us with your thoughts after seeing it brother. Please tag me then.

 

[peagle]

So any talk of dividing India therefore is already on a wrong track because the question includes a false assumption of India constituting a single nation rather than actually constituting multiple nationalities?

That is a very interesting viewpoint. You are right that the underlying assumption does tend to go unchallenged. No way am I an India expert but I think it's definitely a viewpoint worth looking into.

Rather then a viewpoint, it is historical fact. It is actual history.

The largest ethnic group in China are the Han, they constitute more then 90% of China's population.

The largest ethnic group in South Asia, that's all the countries combined are the Bengali 13%, then Punjabi 9%, and many others with distinct cultures, history, language, foods, traditions and so on. A viewpoint is an interpretation of something, what I a stating is historical fact, facts as they have existed and as they exist now.

In all these centuries and millenniums of history why don't all the South Asians speak one language, Sanskrit is an ancient language so there was a reason to create a single identity, Hinduism was a one religion supposedly, so reasons for developing a single identity existed.

it did not happen because each group developed independently of each other, and co-existed purely by the force of geography, what else are you going to do except co-operate or fight with your neighbour, whilst defending and protecting your own identity, and that's exactly what has been happening. India was a region, never a country, a nation nor any single entity, that's a fact.

Even after 70 years of a modern state of India, India still does not have a national language, because they, the southern states, southern half of India and its Dravidian people refuse to accept Hindi as a national language. India has two official languages Hindi and English, and almost 2 dozen scheduled languages, They are both distinct categories, but no, I repeat no official language. How can they claim a historical nation when they cant even agree on a single national language after 70 years of independence.

There are other facts, but the above more then suffices to destroy their fantastical arguments.

 

[peagle]

Besides that criticism, do you think the Jinnah movie is accurate? I've heard about the Muhammad Jinnah movie before but I haven't seen it yet.

That one I want to watch and I'd like to see one of the movies on Tipu Sultan as well. I heard there was an Pakistani one and an Indian one and I was told the Indian one had some inaccuracies.

In itself, yes it is accurate, it is based on a book by an eminent Pakistani professor Akbar Ahmed, based in the USA, who I highly respect.

Pakistanis are extremely poor at recognising and framing arguments, and I fear he has done the same with this movie. When facts are presented in a weak framework, you change the meaning. That is what has happened to this movie, accurate regarding events, but how they are framed and presented, kind-of reinforces false perceptions.

Other movies I am not aware of, sorry. I would be very vary of anything that comes out of India regarding Muslims, Islam and especially Pakistan and Pakistani Muslims/Islam. Except for that I find Indians are intelligent and a pleasure to talk with, in-fact most of my friends presently are of Indian background, but sadly they have a massive blind spot on the about subjects.

 

[Rafi]

I see a lot of people here talking about Nehru. Nehru was much junior and younger to Jinnah - precisely why Gandhi picked him. He didn't have much say till Patel died. Nehruvian India starts in 1950.

Yes, not much difference between Muslim League and RSS in terms of thought. But leadership matters. Jinnah was educated and articulate and also seemed to respect other faiths. So useless to compare him to "Entire political science" degree holder Modi. A better comparison would be to Vajpayee.

I think Jinnah tried to keep indian unified, but he was a visionary and could see what was coming. And knew that Pakistan was the only way.

 

[Jackdaws]

I think Jinnah tried to keep indian unified, but he was a visionary and could see what was coming. And knew that Pakistan was the only way.

You are right. He only wanted to secure the political rights of Indian Muslims. That's why he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan to keep India united under a much weaker central authority. I am younger than someone who has seen a lot more of India like @Joe Shearer - but in the last 6-7 years, I have seen such hate and vitriol directed against Muslims that I have never seen. Am I wrong, @Joe Shearer ? Social media has fueled it. But even mainstream media does it with impunity now.