Question About Jinnah

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @masterchief_mirza On topic, i do agree with both of your points. Pakistanis need to figure out a effective way to counter Indian propaganda and narrative building. The situation is somewhat better as the awareness regarding us is increasing in the world gradually, as well as for the Kashmiri cause, but much still needs to be done. Indians due to their sheer population tends to outnumber us at different platforms. Pakistanis need to counter it and we should do it in a way we don't destroy our credibility either.

However another thing i have noticed is that the world in general doesn't thinks too highly of Indian opinions either. In a way, they are destroying their creditibility themselves. Indians are notoriously stereotyped in a lot of different ways xD

We need to concentrate on building our narrarive, and then supporting that narrative. We are surrounded by neighbors who are masters in narrative building.

Look at Turkey, Iran, Israel, Gulf Arabs, China. They do not move an inch when attacked on the basis of their narrative and rhetoric.

Pakistanis are different, some of us become convinced by the enemy narrative by as little as fancy English words and diction or someone quoting Quran and Ahadith.

This proves to us one thing: The Pakistani Narrative is weak.

When we Pakistanis do not believe in our own narrative, then how can we convince anyone else?

We need to learn how to defeat our own internal demons, which is our pessimism and lack of commitment to our cause.

Once we have faith in ourself, then we can get to work on dismissing, fairly easily, the flawed and rusting Indian sorry excuse for a narrative.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Lolx Jinnah did follow what he preached and no you are wrong Rich Muslims and not so rich Muslims all were part of Muslim League...

And whats the proof of your claim ? Rich Muslims were not the ones deciding it was Muslim League which had all kind of people in leadership...

And indians talking here about hypocrisy oh my days

Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition
86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

Rupa SubramanyaEconomist, commentator

BCCL
Was there overwhelming support for Pakistan among the Muslims of undivided India?
Lately, some in India have been asserting this. As evidence, they refer to statistics from the 1946 provincial assembly elections, in which the Muslim League captured 4.5 million of about 6 million Muslim votes. On the face of it, this would seem to suggest that 75% of Indian Muslims voted for the Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan.
This claim glosses over the crucial fact that the 1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote. In fact, only 3% of the population could vote for the Central Assembly and only 13% could vote for the Provincial Assemblies. That means only 30 million people could vote in assembly elections out of a total adult population of 120 million.

[T]hese election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League.

Putting these numbers together, the upshot is that out of a total of 94 million Muslims in India, according to the 1941 census, less than 7% had the right to vote, or about 14% of the adult population. This means that 86% of adult Muslims in British India did not have the right to vote.
Consequently, it is misleading to invoke 75% support for the Muslim League among Muslim voters in the 1946 assembly elections to infer that a similar percentage of Indian Muslims supported the party and therefore the cause of Pakistan. The truth is that these election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League. Likewise about 4% of the adult Muslim population did not support the Muslim League.
The crucial point is that 86% of Indian Muslims did not have the right to vote, and we in turn do not have the right to infer they would have voted in the same proportion as those who were allowed to vote — which is the assumption you would have to make to infer 75% of Indian Muslims supported Pakistan.

BCCL
If anything, there are reasons to believe that the 75% support for the Muslim League over-represented the support among the general population. The reason is that the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was a cause embraced by the Muslim elite, the very same people who were allowed to vote and were likely to gain economic and other opportunities from the creation of Pakistan. This is a fact that India's British rulers clearly understood. "[A] vote of the whole adult population or of the enfranchised population would be unlikely to provide the result that Jinnah requires," wrote Viceroy Lord Wavell to Lord Pethick Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, on 20 November, 1945.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised. Enfranchising only the elite, as the British did, created elite leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah, neither of whom would likely have had mass electoral appeal under a truly democratic franchise had such a system existed in late British India. It's no accident that Nehru, Jinnah and other leaders of both the Congress and the Muslim League were Anglicized wealthy lawyers, landowners, merchants, or princes.
Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper middle class and upper class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan.
Likewise, like Hindus in what became Pakistan, a large number of Indian Muslims in partitioned border states of Punjab and Bengal migrated to West and East Pakistan respectively, arguably for self-preservation during the carnage following partition.
The real test for those who claim that Pakistan had mass support among India's Muslims would be to look at those provinces, such as the United Provinces and Bihar, which were not partitioned and in which Muslims were relatively safe during the post-partition violence. If indeed Pakistan had mass support, you would have expected mass migration from these provinces. Yet, there's no evidence of such a mass exodus. The census data tells us that the Muslim population of those provinces dropped by one to two percentage points between the 1941 and 1951 census. Even if you assume that all of those people went to Pakistan, this is hardly a mass exodus. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims in these unpartitioned provinces remained in India, whether by choice or by default.

Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru

The official Congress narrative claims that most Indian Muslims were loyal to India, the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It's possible that some or many felt that staying on in India was the best option if only for pragmatic or logistical reasons. In the absence of representative surveys of mass opinion, we are not in a position to make any assertions about those who could not vote.
By the same token, Nehru was an elite leader who before partition arguably commanded relatively little grassroots support. Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if some other leader or even some other political party might have emerged as dominant had there been genuine universal suffrage, just as we have no way of knowing if an altogether different grassroots Muslim party might have emerged under a democratic franchise.
There's a peculiar cognitive dissonance among those who argue correctly that the Nehru-led Congress was an elite party operating under a system of limited franchise before 1947 but refuse to accept that absolutely the same logic applies to Jinnah and the Muslim League during this period. You can't say that Nehru was an elite leader and Jinnah had mass support, when both were operating in exactly the same political system before partition.

Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition

86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

www.huffingtonpost.in

 

[Musings]

These two are not the same, any more than Muslims and terrorists are the same.

With respect - your nation has elected a man responsible for wholesale murder I. February 2002 - a man barred from entering the USA for more than 10 years. A man that has created more diversity and hate filled nation than its entire existence. Look at the direction of Pakistan and then look the direction and diversity of India. To compare the 2 would be like comparing Apple to pears.
Jinnah I’m sure had faults but by Jove one things for certain - he has been proved right about Muslim and Hindu not being able to share land. We must always remember and thank Jinnah for creating Pakistan where our sister mothers and wives can not be lynched for being Muslim.

BTW how’s your new forum?

 

[TheSnakeEatingMarkhur]

Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition
86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

Rupa SubramanyaEconomist, commentator

BCCL
Was there overwhelming support for Pakistan among the Muslims of undivided India?
Lately, some in India have been asserting this. As evidence, they refer to statistics from the 1946 provincial assembly elections, in which the Muslim League captured 4.5 million of about 6 million Muslim votes. On the face of it, this would seem to suggest that 75% of Indian Muslims voted for the Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan.
This claim glosses over the crucial fact that the 1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote. In fact, only 3% of the population could vote for the Central Assembly and only 13% could vote for the Provincial Assemblies. That means only 30 million people could vote in assembly elections out of a total adult population of 120 million.

Putting these numbers together, the upshot is that out of a total of 94 million Muslims in India, according to the 1941 census, less than 7% had the right to vote, or about 14% of the adult population. This means that 86% of adult Muslims in British India did not have the right to vote.
Consequently, it is misleading to invoke 75% support for the Muslim League among Muslim voters in the 1946 assembly elections to infer that a similar percentage of Indian Muslims supported the party and therefore the cause of Pakistan. The truth is that these election results tell us only that a little more than 10% of the adult Muslim population expressed their support for Pakistan by voting for the Muslim League. Likewise about 4% of the adult Muslim population did not support the Muslim League.
The crucial point is that 86% of Indian Muslims did not have the right to vote, and we in turn do not have the right to infer they would have voted in the same proportion as those who were allowed to vote — which is the assumption you would have to make to infer 75% of Indian Muslims supported Pakistan.

BCCL
If anything, there are reasons to believe that the 75% support for the Muslim League over-represented the support among the general population. The reason is that the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan was a cause embraced by the Muslim elite, the very same people who were allowed to vote and were likely to gain economic and other opportunities from the creation of Pakistan. This is a fact that India's British rulers clearly understood. "[A] vote of the whole adult population or of the enfranchised population would be unlikely to provide the result that Jinnah requires," wrote Viceroy Lord Wavell to Lord Pethick Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, on 20 November, 1945.

Limited franchise in effect meant that only people with property or money, and educated professionals, had the right to vote. The large mass of people, of all communities, was simply disenfranchised. Enfranchising only the elite, as the British did, created elite leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah, neither of whom would likely have had mass electoral appeal under a truly democratic franchise had such a system existed in late British India. It's no accident that Nehru, Jinnah and other leaders of both the Congress and the Muslim League were Anglicized wealthy lawyers, landowners, merchants, or princes.
Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper middle class and upper class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan.
Likewise, like Hindus in what became Pakistan, a large number of Indian Muslims in partitioned border states of Punjab and Bengal migrated to West and East Pakistan respectively, arguably for self-preservation during the carnage following partition.
The real test for those who claim that Pakistan had mass support among India's Muslims would be to look at those provinces, such as the United Provinces and Bihar, which were not partitioned and in which Muslims were relatively safe during the post-partition violence. If indeed Pakistan had mass support, you would have expected mass migration from these provinces. Yet, there's no evidence of such a mass exodus. The census data tells us that the Muslim population of those provinces dropped by one to two percentage points between the 1941 and 1951 census. Even if you assume that all of those people went to Pakistan, this is hardly a mass exodus. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims in these unpartitioned provinces remained in India, whether by choice or by default.

The official Congress narrative claims that most Indian Muslims were loyal to India, the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It's possible that some or many felt that staying on in India was the best option if only for pragmatic or logistical reasons. In the absence of representative surveys of mass opinion, we are not in a position to make any assertions about those who could not vote.
By the same token, Nehru was an elite leader who before partition arguably commanded relatively little grassroots support. Just like with the Muslim electorate, it were the moneyed and propertied elite Hindus who voted for the Congress and Nehru. We have no way of knowing if some other leader or even some other political party might have emerged as dominant had there been genuine universal suffrage, just as we have no way of knowing if an altogether different grassroots Muslim party might have emerged under a democratic franchise.
There's a peculiar cognitive dissonance among those who argue correctly that the Nehru-led Congress was an elite party operating under a system of limited franchise before 1947 but refuse to accept that absolutely the same logic applies to Jinnah and the Muslim League during this period. You can't say that Nehru was an elite leader and Jinnah had mass support, when both were operating in exactly the same political system before partition.

Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition

86% of adult Muslims in British India did not even have the right to vote.

www.huffingtonpost.in

Indians as usually doing their propaganda... Muslim population was 94 millions adults but how many were in States that voted because half of states were princely and didn't even vote...

And out of those who voted only in Punjab Sindh and Bengal All India Muslim League won...


The Argument that only rich voted for Muslims is also a hypocrisy in itself because total of 35 millions indians were allowed to vote and that included all religions not just Muslims... but at the end of the day the amount of Muslims that migrated from India to Pakistan speaks for how many wanted Pakistan

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Indians as usually doing their propaganda... Muslim population was 94 millions adults but how many were in States that voted because half of states were princely and didn't even vote...

And out of those who voted only in Punjab Sindh and Bengal All India Muslim League won...


The Argument that only rich voted for Muslims is also a hypocrisy in itself because total of 35 millions indians were allowed to vote and that included all religions not just Muslims... but at the end of the day the amount of Muslims that migrated from India to Pakistan speaks for how many wanted Pakistan

These are the lies they invent to help them sleep at night. These are the fairy tales they tell their children when tucking them in at night.

These fabrications have no place on a serious discussion forum, esp the only one for Pakistanis on the internet.

Their propaganda which they spit out all over the internet has no audience here.

Records are clear, Muslims overwhelmingly supported the Muslim league across the British ruled subcontinent. It was, using that basis, that Pakistan was formally requested, either willingly or unwillingly.

The British knew the ramifications of what Pakistan becoming a global cause of Muslims worldwide would do their ailing empire, so they gave way.

Quaid e Azam did not give them much of a choice, may Allah swt bless him

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Indians as usually doing their propaganda... Muslim population was 94 millions adults but how many were in States that voted because half of states were princely and didn't even vote...

And out of those who voted only in Punjab Sindh and Bengal All India Muslim League won...


The Argument that only rich voted for Muslims is also a hypocrisy in itself because total of 35 millions indians were allowed to vote and that included all religions not just Muslims... but at the end of the day the amount of Muslims that migrated from India to Pakistan speaks for how many wanted Pakistan

Facts:

Only rich Muslims had the right to vote and voted

Rich Muslims migrated to Pakistan because

a) They could afford

b) Unlike India, Pakistan never intended to implement any land reforms. Even after 70 years, Land lords / Waderas rule Pakistan.

 

[TheSnakeEatingMarkhur]

Facts:

Only rich Muslims had the right to vote and voted

Rich Muslims migrated to Pakistan because

a) They could afford

b) Unlike India, Pakistan never intended to implement any land reforms. Even after 70 years, Land lords / Waderas rule Pakistan.

Lmao so you are saying there were 7.2 million rich Muslims ?

And Fact is that only rich and property owner had the right to vote but no just Muslims... count the Hindus and others in aswell but why would you bias is the most common characteristic of indians

And again 7.2 million Muslims migrated between 1947 and 1951 other few more millions between 1951 and 1956...

And as for land reforms there have been many land reforms and Waderas dont rule Pakistan they have a say because most of them joined politics... and Wadera system mainly exists in Inner Sindh and Inner Balochistan not Punjab or KPK or Gilgit/Azad Kashmir...

And I can understand andhbhakti takes away logic first you came up with article when that was exposed you are mixing lies with truth which you people always do...

You talk about Waderas controlling Pakistan which isn't true but lemme ask you a simple question who controls india ? Because 76% of Indian wealth belongs to only 1% of top elites like Ambani and Tatas...

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Lmao so you are saying there were 7.2 million rich Muslims ?

And Fact is that only rich and property owner had the right to vote but no just Muslims... count the Hindus and others in aswell but why would you bias is the most common characteristic of indians

And again 7.2 million Muslims migrated between 1947 and 1951 other few more millions between 1951 and 1956...

And as for land reforms there have been many land reforms and Waderas dont rule Pakistan they have a say because most of them joined politics... and Wadera system mainly exists in Inner Sindh and Inner Balochistan not Punjab or KPK or Gilgit/Azad Kashmir...

And I can understand andhbhakti takes away logic first you came up with article when that was exposed you are mixing lies with truth which you people always do...

You talk about Waderas controlling Pakistan which isn't true but lemme ask you a simple question who controls india ? Because 76% of Indian wealth belongs to only 1% of top elites like Ambani and Tatas...

Report him for unsubstantiated claims if he continues.

I would not waste my time.

Remember what Quaid e Azam RA said about Nehru, it applies to all Hindu majoritarians as well.

"Nehru cannot unlearn what he has already learned."

Studying Quaid e Azam, we can learn so much about the Hindu psyche, because he went through and dealt with their biggest leaders. That mindset of Hindu domination has not left their heads. Whether liberal or Hindutva, they have the same general purpose, which has always been to suppress Muslims.

The state of Indian Muslims today and the acute 73 year oppression of Kashmiris is proof of it.

 

[21st Century Vampire]

To label Modi a "hindu Jinnah"? I think Hindus are quite wide of the mark.

Very preposterous analogy on their part conceptually speaking, amusing indeed!

These two are not the same, any more than Muslims and terrorists are the same.

Ignoratio elenchi, He never said they were, plus hindutva in power or not misinformation towards Pakistan has always been there that's the whole point of it and you can still optically discern it as an example both among hindutvas and liberal secularists on this forum. Btw it's better you drop the Muslims and Terrorists analogy in context of what PakistaniJunior said because BJP still retains a large significant % of support in India compared to the tiny % of extremists among Muslims, the rest speaks for itself (at least for the intelligent)

 

[Musalman]

You honestly do not know how to have a discussion,

I'll take it as a personal insult. However, no where in my statement I gave any comment about you.

We were having a discussion about the status of minorities in Pakistan, you cannot jump from one point to another, that's not how it works. What happens or does not happen is not the issue here.

Aren't these all points related

You made a statement about the oppression and killing of minorities in Pakistan in a sweeping manner, now you are admitting it is not true but have gone off into a different tangent.

I am agreeing on one point, these are not state sponsored now they were back in 70s and 80s. But they are people sponsored .

Argue the point, don't try to sound holier then thou, the treatment of minorities in Pakistan is far far far better then what has been, and is happening in India still, that was our argument, and you have accepted it.

Accepting our own ills makes me an holier then thou person

You are wrong on the Mughal point too, but that's a totally different discussion, and I don't really care and don't wish to continue our discussion.

Ok but are you suggesting there was no discriminations then??

If you keep jumping from one point to next, no discussion would ever come to and end. It was a pointed discussion, and we have concluded it by you acknowledging you were wrong. so, please brother don't make points without having relevant facts. Thank you.

Agree to that, won't reply again

 

[peagle]

I'll take it as a personal insult. However, no where in my statement I gave any comment about you.

Aren't these all points related

I am agreeing on one point, these are not state sponsored now they were back in 70s and 80s. But they are people sponsored .

Accepting our own ills makes me an holier then thou person

Ok but are you suggesting there was no discriminations then??

Agree to that, won't reply again

I apologise, if you felt insulted, but my intention was to inform, if you wish an explanation as to why, I'm happy to do so.
If not, we'll leave it at this.

 

[Apprentice]

The Hindu electorate mostly voted for Congress which wanted independent India. The Muslim electorate mostly voted for Muslim League which campaigned on the basis of establishing Pakistan.

If one wants to argue that the common Muslim did not want Pakistan, the same argument can be made that the common Hindu did not want independence from Britain.

Interestingly, Maulana Azad admitted that most Indian Muslims were followers of Jinnah.

There was also no concept at the time that the partition would mean any population exchange. Both states actually discouraged it. The Muslim League advocated the hostage population theory. That Hindus in Pakistan would stay as hostages for the continued secure presence of Muslims in India.

Punjab became an exception because of the genocidal violence there which forced a population exchange,

People look at that and confuse that to mean partition meant population transfers everywhere. Not true.

There was an additional migration of middle class Indian Muslims from other parts of India until the 1965/1971 wars. But that took place over decades and for socio-economic reasons (such as looking for employment).

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Punjab became an exception because of the genocidal violence there which forced a population exchange,

And we all know Nehru and gang egged on Tara Singh to go rampaging, butchering defenseless Muslims, while Nehru pushed the British to give 7 Muslim majority districts of Punjab to India.

 

[Apprentice]

And we all know Nehru and gang egged on Tara Singh to go rampaging, butchering defenseless Muslims, while Nehru pushed the British to give 7 Muslim majority districts of Punjab to India.

His real wrong was demanding the partition of Punjab and Bengal - both of which were Muslim majority provinces. Had they both gone to Pakistan in full, there would have been no genocide of Muslims in East Punjab.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Maybe it was always like this and we were living in a romanticized bubble in certain parts of the country. I guess SoBo is still insulated but it's depressing reading about incidents all over.

You have a very valid point.