Secular and Nationalist Jinnah Review

[El Sidd]

yea lol
Or may another jaswant singh too much impressed by jinnah

Babay kay maddah har jagah hain....

 

[Solomon2]

Problem being that majority of the law enforcement and security cadre is also recruited from the population where mind-set of the majority is seeped with intolerance and bigotry; hence security /police also carry the same prejudices and therefore are reluctant to protect the minorities.

Like the connection between the KKK and local police in the pre-civil rights era South. Essentially, the law of the land - the Constitution - had to be imposed by force upon much - perhaps the majority - of the local populations.

In America the change from, say, 1946 to 1968 came in several steps: the KKK was derided and exposed in the popular media (google "Superman defeats the KKK"), President Harry Truman commanded the armed forces to integrate, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, President Eisenhower used the U.S. Army to enforce school integration against the will of the Arkansas governor, the KKK's violent response inspired new civil and voting rights acts and FBI intervention and expensive lawsuits, and a new law was passed forbidding racial discrimination in housing.

White supremacists are still around, but the KKK's "Invisible Empire" of hatred is dismantled and its popular support greatly diminished. At each stage many enlightened leaders and motivated citizens did what they could to further the civil rights movement, the process accelerating as people's fears of "niggers" melted away with experience until it found majority support and expression.

 

[El Sidd]

Like the connection between the KKK and local police in the pre-civil rights era South. Essentially, the law of the land - the Constitution - had to be imposed by force upon much - perhaps the majority - of the local populations.

In America the change from, say, 1946 to 1968 came in several steps: the KKK was derided and exposed in the popular media (google "Superman defeats the KKK"), President Harry Truman commanded the armed forces to integrate, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, President Eisenhower used the U.S. Army to enforce school integration against the will of the Arkansas governor, the KKK's violent response inspired new civil and voting rights acts and FBI intervention and expensive lawsuits, and a new law was passed forbidding racial discrimination in housing.

White supremacists are still around, but the KKK's "Invisible Empire" of hatred is dismantled and its popular support greatly diminished. At each stage many enlightened leaders and motivated citizens did what they could to further the civil rights movement, the process accelerating as people's fears of "niggers" melted away with experience until it found majority support and expression.

Mainstreaming kkk is not as smart as mainstreaming fkk

 

[Solomon2]

Mainstreaming kkk is not as smart as mainstreaming fkk

Obscure.

 

[El Sidd]

Obscure.

Cosmetics

 

[Solomon2]

Cosmetics

The purpose of your obscure answer is to cover things up so Pakistanis can continue to do nothing rather than profit from the clear American example.

FYI: "What is the reason that the Muslims have fallen from a position of top of the civilization to the bottom of civilization? One of the reasons or a major reason is OBSCURANTISM. What is obscurantism? Obscurantism is the act of obscuring, or striving to prevent enlightenment, scientific advancement, modernity or to hinder the progress of knowledge and wisdom."

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Like the connection between the KKK and local police in the pre-civil rights era South. Essentially, the law of the land - the Constitution - had to be imposed by force upon much - perhaps the majority - of the local populations.

In America the change from, say, 1946 to 1968 came in several steps: the KKK was derided and exposed in the popular media (google "Superman defeats the KKK"), President Harry Truman commanded the armed forces to integrate, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, President Eisenhower used the U.S. Army to enforce school integration against the will of the Arkansas governor, the KKK's violent response inspired new civil and voting rights acts and FBI intervention and expensive lawsuits, and a new law was passed forbidding racial discrimination in housing.

White supremacists are still around, but the KKK's "Invisible Empire" of hatred is dismantled and its popular support greatly diminished. At each stage many enlightened leaders and motivated citizens did what they could to further the civil rights movement, the process accelerating as people's fears of "niggers" melted away with experience until it found majority support and expression.

I entirely agree with you here. What you ask is what leaders do. Not rulers that Pakistan get's. The last time we had leader was probably Ayub Khan.

 

[Solomon2]

I entirely agree with you here. What you ask is what leaders do. Not rulers that Pakistan get's. The last time we had leader was probably Ayub Khan.

Not all the leaders in the American civil rights story were elected leaders. Far from it. The Hollywood radio show and private investigator behind "Superman defeats the KKK" did so of their own accord. The individuals and associations who fought for civil rights did so without government help that I know of (with the exception of the Soviet-backed American Communist Party, which actually accomplished very little compared to the rest). And while Truman was president, he accomplished what he did by executive order.

So lonely courage and will, without hope of succor, was a most important ingredient. Just because the people you consider to be leaders don't act, isn't a reason for you not to.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hon Kaptaan,

You are right; however this could have been possible only within a couple of years after the partition. Now it is not. Primarily because after the 1937 election; Punjab, NWFP (KPK) and Sind were all controlled by the secular party government.

In the key province of Punjab Unionists won 89 seats out 175, with Congress 18 & All India Muslim League could only manage 1. Unionists were a secular party of big landlords founded by Mian Fazle Hussein & Sir Chotu Ram. It comprised of 24 Muslim land owning families and 6 Hindu Jat families. All of Muslim feudal gentry of Punjab such as the Tiwanas, Noons, Mamdots, Nawab of Kalabagh, Qizilbash, Daulatanas, Gilanis, Qureshis and the Hayats of Wah were its members along with prominent Hindu landed gentry headed by Rao Bahadur Lal. Despite having Allama Iqbal as the president of Punjab faction, Muslim League gained popularity only after the Jinnah-Sikandar pact of 1937 engineered by Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan.

In the NWFP, Congress secured 19 out of 50 seats but was able to form the gov’t with the help of minority parties and Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatagrs. Dr Khan Sahib, brother of Abdul Ghaffar Khan was head of the NWFP government.

In Sind, 34 out of 60 seats were reserved for Muslims but Muslim League could not win a single seat. Sind United party won 22 seats, Hindu Mahasaba11 and Congress 9 seats.

Even in Bengal, Congress was the largest party with 52 seats. However, A. K. Fazlul Haq whose Krishak Praja party won 36 seats, was head of the coalition government.

Thus, being used to living under largely secular governments, there would have been only marginal opposition from the Muslim population had the newly independent state declared as ‘Secular’. But that is “Might have been” and now water is under the bridge. Additionally, during the long reign of the bigot Zia, extremism & intolerance has made deep inroads into a large section of Pakistan’s’ population; thus no longer possible to turn back the clock.

Primary reason for the separate Muslim majority region was to avoid the possibility where a two third Hindu majority could make the life miserable for the Muslim minority in a united India. Neither Allama Iqbal nor the Quaid ever intended Pakistan to be an orthodox Sunni Wahhabi State that the extreme right wingers of Pakistan desire her to be.

Ismaili Imam HH Agha Khan was the first president of Muslim League and he occupied this position for 7 years. The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was also a Shia. Followers of Taliban / Wahhabis /Salafi factions kill the Shia & the Ismailis considering it Allah’s work. How could the founding fathers even think of creating a country where they would have their throats cut?

Because Pakistan was created on the basis of ‘TWO NATION’ theory. Even though the Two Nation theory ceased to be of relevance after the creation of Pakistan; IMO it would be a betrayal of Allama Iqbal’s vision to turn Pakistan into a purely secular State, therefore I am not for a secular Pakistan.

Whatever the extremist sympathisers wish or imagine, founding fathers intended Pakistan to be a tolerant, progressive & moderate country where Muslims as well as the minorities could live in peace. White portion of the Pakistani flag testifies that Pakistan was never intended to be country where Christian Churches are bombed by the extremist butchers. My model for Pakistan is as she was until 1968 or someplace like Dubai or Oman of today.

Well said sir!

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@SecularNationalist

Your explanation is close to the mark than Sid mians.

Regards

 

[SecularNationalist]

@SecularNationalist

Your explanation is close to the mark than Sid mians.

Regards

Glad to know there are still Indians who love to dig history and crave for real facts about our founding father.
A Indian friend of mine called Jinnah a great leader and he said he deserved more than nehru.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@SecularNationalist

Thanks. I know much about our Qaid thanks to the writings of a wonderful Pakistani gentleman called Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani, whose Sole Spokesman/khadim I have been for almost a decade on cyberspace.

A Indian friend of mine called Jinnah a great leader and he said he deserved more than nehru.

Well, I have written this several time across several foums (or is it fora?) and you can quote me on this "Nehru was a worthless ch***ya who on his own merit wouldnt have found a job as a chaprassi at the Qaid's law firm"

Regards

 

[SecularNationalist]

@SecularNationalist

Thanks. I know much about our Qaid thanks to the writings of a wonderful Pakistani gentleman called Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani, whose Sole Spokesman/khadim I have been for almost a decade on cyberspace.

A Indian friend of mine called Jinnah a great leader and he said he deserved more than nehru.

Well, I have written this several time across several foums (or is it fora?) and you can quote me on this "Nehru was a worthless ch***ya who on his own merit wouldnt have found a job as a chaprassi at the Qaid's law firm"

Regards

Can i ask you question?

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@SecularNationalist

Sure, fire!

Regards

 

[SecularNationalist]

@SecularNationalist

Sure, fire!

Regards

Who you admire most Gandhi or Jinnah?