'Sare Jahan Se Achcha' poet Mohammed Iqbal remains pariah in India

[Sashan]

Armstrong - what message you intend to convey here? That Mohammad Iqbal wanted a federation within Indian union self-ruled by muslims in muslim dominated areas? Please clarify.

 

[Redbull]

Unfortunately, Iqbal was a pan-islamist.

 

[Bratva]

Then why we wrote Sare jaha se achchha Hindustan Hamara, if he really wanted a separate country.

Sarre jahan say acha was written in 1907 or 1909. Iqbal demanded a separate country for muslims in 1930.

Just another Fact. Jinnah was the biggest supporter of Hindu-muslim unity in 1910-20. But his views also changed in 1920's and 30's.

which proves how rigid stance hindu leaders adopted at that time due to which no adjustment formula for indian muslims was accepted and after that demand for separate homeland was made!

 

[INDIC]

Sarre jahan say acha was written in 1907 or 1909. Iqbal demanded a separate country for muslims in 1930.

Just another Fact. Jinnah was the biggest supporter of Hindu-muslim unity in 1910-20. But his views also changed in 1920's and 30's.

which proves how rigid stance hindu leaders adopted at that time due to which no adjustment formula for indian muslims was accepted and after that demand for separate homeland was made!

As far I know Jinnah never liked Hindus. He left Congress because Maulana Azad was preferred over him.

Furthermore Jinnah was making unjust demands like 1/3 seats for Muslims even in those provinces where Muslims were just 10-15%. Even in UP and Bihar Muslims were about 20%.

 

[Armstrong]

Armstrong - what message you intend to convey here? That Mohammad Iqbal wanted a federation within Indian union self-ruled by muslims in muslim dominated areas? Please clarify.

Apparently so ! The Muslim demand went from 'more rights & safeguards' to what could be called as an 'autonomous region within India in much the same way how in the US everyone makes their own laws so that we could develop & incorporate the Shariah' to 'outright secession from a United India'. Iqbal was at point 2 when Jinnah Sahib was still at point 1; one can only speculate whether Iqbal would have reached the 'secession part' before Jinnah Sahib or would he have reached it at all ! I think he probably would have seeing the progression of things - No safeguards that we were looking for, No Shariah even in Muslim majority Provinces = Pakistan.

 

[Armstrong]

@ Zarvin : You really need to grab a copy of Iqbal's Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam !

As far as I've understood his thoughts in going through it, he wasn't looking for one big Muslim country but rather the emergence of Muslim Nation states who would realize their inherent potential for unity & form a Muslim Bloc that looks out for each other.

P.S A certain kind of Pan-Islamism is a part of who we are ! Especially in the case of Pakistan - Hum logg eik qaum hain kiyun keh hum Musalmaan hain !

 

[arbit]

1920 onwards till independence were difficult times for the country. With no idea in sight of how a newly born self ruling multireligous society like India fare after independence. Muslims were also a insecure lot and if Jinnah or poet Iqbal proposed for a separate nation. I don't grudge them for that. They did what they had to do.

what I do mind is that we failed to prevent it. ab jo ho gaya so ho gaya. To hate Iqbal for his point of view would be an extremely petty minded thing to do. Losers do this.

Lastly poets and politicians usually don't go together. He was a poet first and some amount of idealism on his part is expected.

 

[Yaduveer]

Just another Fact. Jinnah was the biggest supporter of Hindu-muslim unity in 1910-20. But his views also changed in 1920's and 30's.

which proves how rigid stance hindu leaders adopted at that time due to which no adjustment formula for indian muslims was accepted and after that demand for separate homeland was made!

In 1925 , a muslim boy said he was muslim first but Jinnah replied "No Boy! you are Indian first and then muslim", It's true Jinnah was secular and nationalist.

But He was also power-hungry.

Jinnah was Liberal nationalist who found himself out of tune in new Mass based Politics like Non-cooperation movement 1921 and Civil disobedience movement 1931.

Instead of reorinting himself with new wave , He choose to get support of Muslim communalists like Agha Khan for his political ambitions.

Once he was in, He can never oppose communalists without loosing his political influence. ,typical example being His views on Nehru report which he has bite his word back under influence of muslim communalists.


That's how preacher of Hindu-muslim unity converted into extreme communalist and demanding separate nation Pakistan.

P.S: Please keep your twisted logics with you , everybody know how HISTORY BOOKS are written in Pakistan.

 

[Sashan]

Sarre jahan say acha was written in 1907 or 1909. Iqbal demanded a separate country for muslims in 1930.

Just another Fact. Jinnah was the biggest supporter of Hindu-muslim unity in 1910-20. But his views also changed in 1920's and 30's.

which proves how rigid stance hindu leaders adopted at that time due to which no adjustment formula for indian muslims was accepted and after that demand for separate homeland was made!

In 1920s, to be specific in 1928, Motilal(father of Nehru), who was the Congress president at that time, came up with what is called "Nehru Report" . It is an overview of the constitution envisioned for the New Dominian(which never came by the way) and if you read up, he was fair and square and proposed the closest to a secular India. At the same time, he envisioned safeguarding the minority rights - He proposed in provinces where minorities were more than 10%, he suggested reservations for legislative seats proportionate to the percentage of the minorities. In a few months, Jinnah proposed a 14 points where he suggested everything 1/3 for muslims. In a multireligious society(it was not just muslims and hindus who were/are part of India), take your pick - whose proposal was right. Motilal's or Jinnah's?

P.S: Nehru ditched his father's vision and took Simon's report(which formed the basis of the 1935 Government of India Act which proposed different laws for different religions) as the basis for the new Indian constitution post independence is a different story.

 

[INDIC]

In 1920s, to be specific in 1928, Motilal(father of Nehru), who was the Congress president at that time, came up with what is called "Nehru Report" . It is an overview of the constitution envisioned for the New Dominian(which never came by the way) and if you read up, he was fair and square and proposed the closest to a secular India. At the same time, he envisioned safeguarding the minority rights - He proposed in provinces where minorities were more than 10%, he suggested reservations for legislative seats proportionate to the percentage of the minorities. In a few months, Jinnah proposed a 14 points where he suggested everything 1/3 for muslims. In a multireligious society(it was not just muslims and hindus who were/are part of India), take your pick - whose proposal was right. Motilal's or Jinnah's?

P.S: Nehru ditched his father's vision and took Simon's report(which formed the basis of the 1935 Government of India Act which proposed different laws for different religions) as the basis for the new Indian constitution post independence is a different story.

Jinnah's 14 point was demanding too much. Muslims were not more than 20% in any of Hindu majority provinces, Demand of 1/3 reserved seat was an invalid demand.

 

[pakdefender]

Saray jahan say gandah hindustan tumhara , tum is kay bandh gobi , yeh tumhara bh!ndi tori

 

[Redbull]

@ Zarvin : You really need to grab a copy of Iqbal's Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam !

As far as I've understood his thoughts in going through it, he wasn't looking for one big Muslim country but rather the emergence of Muslim Nation states who would realize their inherent potential for unity & form a Muslim Bloc that looks out for each other.

P.S A certain kind of Pan-Islamism is a part of who we are ! Especially in the case of Pakistan - Hum logg eik qaum hain kiyun keh hum Musalmaan hain !

i've given up on the sharia idea as a whole. Everyone has their own version of sharia and the best versions iMO are the ones which are secular, liberal, demoacratic etc..in other words, the ones that resemble the Western european system the most, but people innovate(ijtihad) the hell out of the Islamic texts to come up with this copycat system but still call it "Sharia"...

Also I've given up on the idea of Pan-Islamism, human beings are brothers, what you believe in shouldn't matter, whether the person is pakistani hindu or christian...he is also your brother before Islam existed.

That being said, I will check out the book some day.

 

[Bratva]

As far I know Jinnah never liked Hindus. He left Congress because Maulana Azad was preferred over him.

Furthermore Jinnah was making unjust demands like 1/3 seats for Muslims even in those provinces where Muslims were just 10-15%. Even in UP and Bihar Muslims were about 20%.

In 1925 , a muslim boy said he was muslim first but Jinnah replied "No Boy! you are Indian first and then muslim", It's true Jinnah was secular and nationalist.

But He was also power-hungry.

Jinnah was Liberal nationalist who found himself out of tune in new Mass based Politics like Non-cooperation movement 1921 and Civil disobedience movement 1931.

Instead of reorinting himself with new wave , He choose to get support of Muslim communalists like Agha Khan for his political ambitions.

Once he was in, He can never oppose communalists without loosing his political influence. ,typical example being His views on Nehru report which he has bite his word back under influence of muslim communalists.


That's how preacher of Hindu-muslim unity converted into extreme communalist and demanding separate nation Pakistan.

P.S: Please keep your twisted logics with you , everybody know how HISTORY BOOKS are written in Pakistan.

Jinnah's 14 point was demanding too much. Muslims were not more than 20% in any of Hindu majority provinces, Demand of 1/3 reserved seat was an invalid demand.

In 1920s, to be specific in 1928, Motilal(father of Nehru), who was the Congress president at that time, came up with what is called "Nehru Report" . It is an overview of the constitution envisioned for the New Dominian(which never came by the way) and if you read up, he was fair and square and proposed the closest to a secular India. At the same time, he envisioned safeguarding the minority rights - He proposed in provinces where minorities were more than 10%, he suggested reservations for legislative seats proportionate to the percentage of the minorities. In a few months, Jinnah proposed a 14 points where he suggested everything 1/3 for muslims. In a multireligious society(it was not just muslims and hindus who were/are part of India), take your pick - whose proposal was right. Motilal's or Jinnah's?

P.S: Nehru ditched his father's vision and took Simon's report(which formed the basis of the 1935 Government of India Act which proposed different laws for different religions) as the basis for the new Indian constitution post independence is a different story.

I hate it when indians usually think a apakisatni arguing them on defence.pk has only read his distorted books and in doing so they expose their own ignorance of subject. Second thing,you didnt mentioned second party i,e muslims. You failed to tell us why jinnah made excessive demands? Why muslims trusted jinah in 20's 3O's and 40's so much so that 86 87 percent votes were given to Jinnah party in 1946 indian general election. Did your indian text books ever told you thawhat were the reasons behind such a land slide victory? Why muslims believed put their faith in a cunning, deceptive and oppurtunist politician for such a long time?

Well you are suggesting demands made by jinnah in 20's and 30's were way out of the league but did you know the background and circumstances of theses demands.?

Have your ever bothered to read the conditions of muslims in 20's and 3O's? Most economically socially and political backwards were the muslims at that time and adding fuel to fire, communal clashes b/w muslims and hindus erupted many times in these two decades.

Every demand made by jinnah has a long history associated with it.

Now piece of advice, you want to debate, than please properly search the conditions of muslims by using google and Joe Shearer knowledge. He has extensively read and researched this matter and will precisly tell you about the conditions faced by muslims.

Than we will decide who is debating with distoted facts

P.S. I can see indians totally ignored the link i shared in my previous pos and also the main point in which Jiinah telling gandhi you canot decide the faith alone. Than they accuse that either we dont read or read distorted books alas

 

[Sashan]

I hate it when indians usually think a apakisatni arguing them on defence.pk has only read his distorted books and in doing so they expose their own ignorance of subject. Second thing,you didnt mentioned second party i,e muslims. You failed to tell us why jinnah made excessive demands? Why muslims trusted jinah in 20's 3O's and 40's so much so that 86 87 percent votes were given to Jinnah party in 1946 indian general election. Did your indian text books ever told you thawhat were the reasons behind such a land slide victory? Why muslims believed put their faith in a cunning, deceptive and oppurtunist politician for such a long time?

Well you are suggesting demands made by jinnah in 20's and 30's were way out of the league but did you know the background and circumstances of theses demands.?

Have your ever bothered to read the conditions of muslims in 20's and 3O's? Most economically socially and political backwards were the muslims at that time and adding fuel to fire, communal clashes b/w muslims and hindus erupted many times in these two decades.

Every demand made by jinnah has a long history associated with it.

Now piece of advice, you want to debate, than please properly search the conditions of muslims by using google and Joe Shearer knowledge. He has extensively read and researched this matter and will precisly tell you about the conditions faced by muslims.

Than we will decide who is debating with distoted facts

P.S. I can see indians totally ignored the link i shared in my previous pos and also the main point in which Jiinah telling gandhi you canot decide the faith alone. Than they accuse that either we dont read or read distorted books alas

I am all ears and willing to look through your angle - Summarize for me what changed between Jinnah being a secular person he is and disapproving Gandhi's opportunistic support for Khilafat movement in early 1920s and coming up with the 14 point program on behalf of muslims in late 1920s.

 

[karan.1970]

One fought for the freedom of a nation (including for the muslims of that country)
The other spoke for separation of 2 communities.
There is vast difference my dear.

And arent you thankful to Jinnah for that... You better be mate...