Stop blaming Jinnah, Pakistan for India’s wrongs today: Yasser Hamdani rebuts Zainab Sikander

[SIPRA]

Indian Muslims don't want to migrate to Pakistan. None of them. Because they are much better here than there.
Stop exaggerating their miseries to justify existence of Pakistan.

If Indian Muslims are much better in India, as you are stating.
AND
Of course, Muslims in Pakistan consider themselves to be much better than being part of India, as you can gather from the posts by a large number of Pakistani posters.
THEN
The existence of Pakistan stands automatically justified.

 

[SIPRA]

The large number of posts justifying Pakistan are themselves proof of the NEED of justify it.

Well. Those all may not be, what you are calling "justifying", but mere historical analysis to lay down the circumstances, which lead to the establishment of Pakistan.

Do you see people justifying existence of Bangladesh here? no.

Yes. They also do it; what you are calling "justifying" and I am saying "historical analysis". There are a number of such posts on PDF, by Bangladeshi posters, to that effect. Even I have responded to quite a few ones.

An honorable member said here that areas of present day Pakistan were different from India ALWAYS. I would like to counter that politely

I am, in any case, not that "honorable" member; so you may spare me, at least.

Your Punjab is virtually the same as Indian Punjab in all aspects except for the demography

Agree.

Your Sindh province still harbours a large Hindu population.

Agree.

Sindh was extension of India's Gujarat

Yes. Sindh was part of the erstwhile Bombay province/state, before it's separation, as part of the British administrative arrangement.

About ancient times, Chanakya, the much popularized statecraft author was from taxila . Where is taxila?

In Pakistan.

Peshawar was Purushpur

I don't think that there is any historical evidence for this claim.

I have no issues that you lot converted to Islam.

Nether have I, if you lot have preferred to remain Hindu.

But why is there this zeal to create a false narrative of an ancient Pakistan that was separate from India?

A valid question for those, who proclaim as such.

Your ancestors were as Hindu as it can get. Please refer to your DNA reports.

No need for any DNA. I agree.

 

[SkyWolf]

Waah. They migrate to Pakistan. Why don't you show us data about how many Indian Muslims actually migrated to Pakistan and how many Hindus migrated to India from Pakistan. Don't make excuses that it's because Pakistan won't give them residency. Speak the truth. Indian Muslims don't want to migrate to Pakistan. None of them. Because they are much better here than there. Stop exaggerating their miseries to justify existence of Pakistan.

I gave u several reasons. Some critical of pakistan. But u still cant digest the truth. Not my problem.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Very interesting to see that most Pakistanis blame India of being an agent of the West. Some history lessons for kids . Who was part of that SEATO CENTO etc etc. For which country USA was gonna send it's carrier group. Which country was receiving COALITION support fund.. I don't know bruh. Pakistanis portraying India as an agent of West are either plain stupid or ignorant or both.

No no. To be clear, India is totally unreliable however it can swarm and negate Pakistan and Pakistani interests with sheer numbers. That aligns with western deep state interests. Nobody in their right mind would count on India but you are in the right place by default.

 

[hussain0216]

The large number of posts justifying Pakistan are themselves proof of the NEED of justify it. Do you see people justifying existence of Bangladesh here? no.
An honorable member said here that areas of present day Pakistan were different from India ALWAYS. I would like to counter that politely
Your Punjab is virtually the same as Indian Punjab in all aspects except for the demography
Your Sindh province still harbours a large Hindu population. Sindh was extension of India's Gujarat
About ancient times, Chanakya, the much popularized statecraft author was from taxila . Where is taxila?
Peshawar was Purushpur

I have no issues that you lot converted to Islam. But why is there this zeal to create a false narrative of an ancient Pakistan that was separate from India? Your ancestors were as Hindu as it can get. Please refer to your DNA reports.

There is no false narrative

The people from Pakistan are different to the people in India

The zeal is because we hate Hindus

 

[SIPRA]

If RSS activities continues then Barrister Assaduddin Owaisi will become Jinnah. New Muslim league movement will form from Hyderabad.

Unfortunately, unity of Indian Muslims appear to be a far cry, at least for now. Hindu elite has so far been quite successful in fragmenting and dividing Indian Muslims, on sectarian and ethnic lines.

 

[macnurv]

Arecent article in ThePrint, ‘Indian Muslims are silent about Tabrez Ansari because of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’ by Zainab Sikander, does the unthinkable. Besides butchering historical facts, the article, in a very sinister attempt, blames Muslims for their “fate”. It is incredible that such a leap of fancy can even be given space in a serious news outlet. [Zainab Sikander’s response is included at the end of this article.]

Let us consider the historical facts, those stubborn realities that Sikander utterly failed to take into account despite claiming to be a history graduate. None of these following facts are historically disputed. First and foremost, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the only leader before undivided India — not Mahatma Gandhi, not Jawaharlal Nehru, and certainly not Maulana Azad — to be called the ‘best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’.

It was not the Indian Muslim or a Pakistani who called him that. Indian freedom movement leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Sarojini Naidu, others and Gandhi himself conferred Jinnah with this acclaimed title. When Sikander’s favourite patriot Maulana Azad was busy calling India ‘Darul-Harb’ and asking Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan, Jinnah was trying to reason with Gandhi and tell him not to bring religion into politics. Far from putting religion above country, Jinnah’s most famous quote was “I am an Indian, first second and last.” So, what changed?

Also read: Indian Muslims are silent over Tabrez Ansari because of Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Get acquainted with history first
By the 1930s, the emerging wave of populist mass politics that Congress was engaging in and the rise of the Hindu Mahasabha convinced Jinnah of the need to have constitutional safeguards for all minorities, amongst which Muslims comprised the most. He repeatedly attempted to come to a compromise but was spurned. However, his demand for the creation of Pakistan was not predicated on the condition of the partition of India. Anyone who reads the 1940 Lahore Resolution with a keen legal eye can see that it envisaged an India above a Muslim majority federation and a Hindu majority federation, bound together by a super-constitution, protecting minorities in both. This consociational vision for a modern independent India was almost realised with the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan. What Jinnah agreed to was less than a confederation and more a federation.

But these are not novel views. And I am not introducing new evidence. H.M Seervai, one of the greatest jurists of India, stated very clearly that it was the Congress leadership that was to blame for the partition of India. All you need to do is pick up his introduction to the Indian constitution, published separately as “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”. Moreover, Seervai was not the first one to state this. Sikander’s uber Muslim patriot Maulana Azad said as much about this in his own book “India Wins Freedom”. B.R. Ambedkar’s book on Pakistan “Pakistan or the Partition of India” had stated these facts in the 1940s and Jinnah himself recommended his book to Gandhi during their talks in 1944. If only the history graduate had bothered to read these books instead of blaming “Pakistan’s Quaid-e-Azam” for all that is wrong with India’s Muslims today.

Also read: What explains the Muslim silence in the face of BJP’s aggressive Hindutva?

The truth about Jinnah
Let us, however, ignore these facts and assume that the hackneyed nationalist mythology — common place on both sides of the border — is entirely true. Let us assume that Jinnah, the “pork-eating, wine drinking namesake Muslim” as Sikander writes, had somehow in the sixty-fourth year of his life decided to turn his back on everything he stood for and on the city he built his life in, for some sort of personal glory. Let us also assume that the would-be Pakistanis who followed him selfishly wanted to create an exclusive homeland for themselves — again historically untrue even if Pakistan did meander away from Jinnah’s vision of a secular state. But how can these be a valid justification for any lynching in India in 2019? At the core of Zainab Sikander’s argument is that the actions taken by Jinnah and his followers back then gives license to Hindus to act the way they do today.

Far from proving Jinnah’s contentions about Hindu majoritarianism wrong, her article actually proves him right. Jinnah had the prescience to see what unfettered majority rule without any safeguards for minorities would land India in. Even Sikander’s favourite patriot Maulana Azad could realise this when he criticised Congress for not always living up to the ideals of real nationalism.

Also read: When a Pakistan minister & Jinnah follower resigned over atrocities against Hindus

My advice to Sikander
There was nothing divine or holy about the borders of British India. Before the British arrived in India, there was never ‘one India’. It was always a collection of states. The only time India came closest to one unified polity was under emperor Aurangzeb, the same ruler Indians decry as fanatics and in whose opposition Chhatrapati Shivaji is lauded as patriotic even by Jawaharlal Nehru. Even during the British rule, India was two distinct polities — India under the British and the princely states of India.

In 1937, a major chunk of British India was separated to form the independent state of Burma. Imagine an Indian Buddhist writing about this separation and Burma’s birth in the manner that Sikander writes. This opens up all minorities to blackmail. If Sikander can lend herself to be blackmailed for something that happened so long ago and is part of history, is she also willing to be blamed for the establishment of Kashmir’s Hurriyat Conference? Interestingly, it is just not the separatist Kashmiri leaders in jail today but also those Kashmiris who rejected Pakistan in 1947. Farooq Abdullah languishes in house arrest without trial just as his father Sheikh Abdullah did in the 1950s under Nehru.

My sincere advice therefore to Sikander is to reconsider her bias against Jinnah and to stop blaming Pakistan for everything that is wrong with India today. I certainly do not blame India for the myriad of problems that exist in Pakistan today. It is time to stop blaming Jinnah and take responsibility for what India is today at this moment.


https://theprint.in/opinion/stop-bl...yasser-hamdani-rebuts-zainab-sikander/293122/

Reading her reminded me of this story, one of most intriguing and interesting ones I am reading, so I shall share it here.

There was a group of people living as a minority in a country where they were treated as a third class citizens, had little to no opportunities, were required to prove their citizen ship and wear a distinctive insignia to differentiate them from other residents. They were also not allowed to travel freely, so all in all their lives were miserable. These people had a long history, where once they were the rulers of that very land from one end to the other, yet a turn of events resulted in them loosing power and the country was divided.

There was new country formed across the sea, with those who left behind had to endure that humiliation. Interestingly those very outcasts left behind had a choice to become a full citizen of country by joining army and attacking their cousins, by blaming them for all their misery and pain. Thanks to a revisionist history they also came to believe that it was the fault of their ancestors that resulted in their predicament and they must repent for that crime by defending their oppressors and hating their long lost cousins, as in their minds that was the only way to become a citizen of that land.

This is pretty much the story of Attack on Titan Manga, its an interesting read. But I cant help draw parallels here between what Indian Muslims are thinking and how they feel being more anti-Pakistan will prove their patriotism to their countrymen. As every single Pakistani knows that hate is a currency in great demand in India and nothing trumps hating Pakistan.

Now should we give a Fu*k about them, of course NO. I have not a shred of sympathy for such people, who spews hatred for my people and country, am I supposed to care for them just because they share the same religion I was born into, not at all. Should we as a nation even give a damn about such people, of course not. But we must counter their false narratives at every point and opportunity. For far too long we have allowed India and Indians to define what Pakistan is to the rest of the world, we must counter and take back control of our identity. India has taken control of everything subcontinent, yet my countrymen like to behave as if we didnt had a history before 1947, we must take control of narrative and set it straight. Now it will be an uphill climb as for over 50 years we had allowed India to set the narrative.

India is disintegrating right in front of our eyes, breakage of India by external forces is very difficult but internal strife is the only way India can be brought down. Its a country of contrasting cultures and values, it was their biggest strength, but thanks to ideological RSS and its cohorts the fault lines are only being made deep. Let them continue on this path and not stop them. I hope these ideologues dont push us all to extinction because the biggest problem with such zealots is their little to no connection with reality.

1. Good to see that even the police is afraid of you. Now tell your dear Pakistanis to stop their drama that Muslims are a persecuted lot in India.
2. In my opinion, Owaisi is a mere puppet propped up to fool religious zealots like you. It's because of owaisi putting up his own candidates that Muslim candidates lose in so many seats because of bifurcation of votes . Owaisi is a lollipop you keep sucking on.

You go and suck on some Godi dick, you clown.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Subjective interpretation that ignores the political evolution of the subcontinent. Hindustan is ideologically an ally of convenience for various reasons to the western world. This all began with mountbatten leaving the Kashmir issue as a thorn in Pakistan and India's sides. India happens to hold sway at present simply because of ongoing geopolitical circumstances, not because Jinnah made a "blunder" or that Hindustan would inevitably dominate its "outpost" neighbour. Sort Kashmir out. Pakistan will then do just fine without needing anyone meddling in its affairs thanks.

India was not an ally of western world until 1990s but Pakistan was always an ally of western world. So even with your allies, you weren't able to militarily defeat India back then and that only proves that India is and was always stronger than Pakistan. So Jinnah obviously gifted this power to India by chipping away a small portion of Indian subcontinent which was anyways muslim majority land and giving Hindus the absolute control on politics, decision-making, policing, armed forces of such big land mass.

Jinnah was right and has been proven so. Despite Pakistan being in a weak position economically, we are free from beef lynching by Hindutvas. Never have I seen such overwhelming stupidity, sanctioned by state apparatus and mutually compounded by different sectors of so called civil society as I have seen in Hindustan. The judiciary, the media, the politicians, the opposition, the public...all perpetuate the b.s. of Hindutva and assist each other in sustaining this subhuman and primitive barbarian ideology.

Present day Pakistan was always a muslim majority land and hindutva lot wouldn't dare to lynch minorities in the muslim majority areas. How many times have you heard about muslims getting lynched in muslim majority areas in India?

Hindutva happy because jinnah allowed them to control Hindustan? Fanciful interpretation of reality. Hindutva control Hindustan because the western world decided to lift sanctions against the butcher of Gujarat. Now you should ponder. Ponder on why they did that.

And why did the world decide to lift sanctions against him? Because he became the head of Hindu India which was powerful both economically and militarily and guess what, Jinnah gifted that opportunity to Hindutva to take control. In an undivided India, Hindutva would have been forced to share power with muslims, an uneasy alliance. But right now, they go unopposed with their job.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

"India was not an ally of western world until 1990s but Pakistan was always an ally of western world. So even with your allies, you weren't able to militarily defeat India back then and that only proves that India is and was always stronger than Pakistan."

Nope. Western judaeo-xtian world will always stop short of true support for pk. They would never ever have sacrificed their troops in a costly war against Hindu hordes on behalf of a Muslim nation, even at the height of the cold war. Did you forget the whole British imperial era of world history? That guided the American era likewise and still guides us today. No repeat of the ottomans or the abbasids/rashiduns or any other great independent Muslim nation can be permitted. Until the 1990's, the Russians complicated matters, hence NATO needed certain Muslim nations to counter the reds but well within certain limits .

This is pretty straightforward so I am surprised you choose to bypass it in your analysis.

"Present day Pakistan was always a muslim majority land and hindutva lot wouldn't dare to lynch minorities in the muslim majority areas. "

Thank you for your honesty. Muslims must ensure a critical mass of population in order to avert Hindutva lynchings or Gujarat massacres. This is why 370 is a matter of human rights, protection against genocide and basic security for Kashmiris. Even WITH safety in numbers, if Hindutva sympathising security forces/politicians collude with Hindutva mobs, Muslims in India will be in trouble. Again, 370 is necessary. Armed Muslim security forces/paramilitary are necessary. Hindutva scumlords have removed BOTH in recent months. A repeat of Gujarat, instigated by the very same perpetrator, is a real risk in Kashmir.

"In an undivided India, Hindutva would have been forced to share power with muslims, an uneasy alliance. "

No Pakistani Muslim, or the partition-era precursors of Pakistani Muslims, wants to do Pooja holi bhagwan apologism, hence as this is the only type of Muslim who actually succeeds in terms of livelihood in Hindustan, it would never have worked.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Nope. Western judaeo-xtian world will always stop short of true support for pk. They would never ever have sacrificed their troops in a costly war against Hindu hordes on behalf of a Muslim nation, even at the height of the cold war. Did you forget the whole British imperial era of world history? That guided the American era likewise and still guides us today. No repeat of the ottomans or the abbasids/rashiduns or any other great independent Muslim nation can be permitted. Until the 1990's, the Russians complicated matters, hence NATO needed certain Muslim nations to counter the reds but well within certain limits .

This is pretty straightforward so I am surprised you choose to bypass it in your analysis.

They may have not sacrificed their troops for Pakistan but they surely supported Pakistan in all possible ways acceptable to them against India prior to 90's. You and me can agree on that.

Thank you for your honesty. Muslims must ensure a critical mass of population in order to avert Hindutva lynchings or Gujarat massacres. This is why 370 is a matter of human rights, protection against genocide and basic security for Kashmiris. Even WITH safety in numbers, if Hindutva sympathising security forces/politicians collude with Hindutva mobs, Muslims in India will be in trouble. Again, 370 is necessary. Armed Muslim security forces/paramilitary are necessary. Hindutva scumlords have removed BOTH in recent months. A repeat of Gujarat, instigated by the very same perpetrator, is a real risk in Kashmir.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Critical mass muslim population would deter lynching of muslims in those areas, so present day Pakistan was always safe from lynchings or Gujarat genocides. So partition didn't give you any big advantage while giving an absolute advantage to Hindutva forces as they control an huge country with enormous resources. Had their been no partition, Armed forces would have had proportional muslim personnel which would have kept the Hindutva loons in check. Now look at your countrymen, Kashmiris are being brutalized and you can't do zilch about it except for ranting on international forum. Had there been an unified India, Kashmiris wouldn't have had to face these atrocities. Think about it.

No Pakistani Muslim, or the partition-era precursors of Pakistani Muslims, wants to do Pooja holi bhagwan apologism, hence as this is the only type of Muslim who actually succeeds in terms of livelihood in Hindustan, it would never have worked.

Were muslims from pre-partitioned Pakistan forced to do Poojas? Heck, even in present day India, muslim majority areas dont have any such kind of Poojas etc. So please stop giving those excuses. Problem with you Pakistanis is that, you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill to justify the creation of Pakistan.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

That is North India only
Rest of India is ruled by miya miya bhais. No one can touch us. Even police and army afraid of us. Hindus dont have any daring

If true, I am yet to see evidence of this.

All is see is beef lynching, jayshreeram attacks and renaming of Mughal era towns, stations etc.

You clearly have zero real power to influence national discourse. You may be comfortable and paid well in what you do...but essentially, you're paid to stay out of Hindutva's way.

The Abdullah family enjoyed similar prominence in Kashmir. Need I remind you of the whining Abdullah senior upon his arrest "this isn't my INDIA" he exclaimed, realising too late what Hindutva had planned for his "miya" lifestyle.

Haven't heard a peep from him since.