Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kayro ki tarah dusra mulk to ni banya humne?
tum logo nai dar k maare mulk hi bana dala (waha mere bhadur bhaijaan)
Pak should make up it's mind and either go full Saudistan style or go for full secular constitutional reform
For years supporting mullahs like Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab and Afghan Jihad now Americans will come here and preach us tolerance. These people are your illegal sons, heirs of your hegemony over the world. They rule by Islamicizing the masses and making brainless, iconoclastic, unthinking mullahs out of the population while declaring our people heretics. You supported the biggest Islamist terrorist in Pakistani history, Zia Ul Haq. Read his history and come back with your dirty American face.You didn't respond to anything the history professor wrote. Your attitude is one who wants to keep his prejudices rather than learn. Very troll-like, yes?
For years supporting mullahs like Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab and Afghan Jihad now Americans will come here and preach us tolerance. These people are your illegal sons, heirs of your hegemony over the world. They rule by Islamicizing the masses and making brainless, iconoclastic, unthinking mullahs out of the population while declaring our people heretics. You supported the biggest Islamist terrorist in Pakistani history, Zia Ul Haq. Read his history and come back with your dirty American face.
Stay assured you will find not even a grain of respect or even acceptance from the liberal community of Pakistan. We see you as the cause of ruin in Pakistani society.
Solomon2 comment: Yes, it's over two years old, but isn't it still relevant?Jinnah’s Pakistan
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Published: March 18, 2013
The writer is the Chairperson of the History Department at Forman Christian College, Lahore
Over the past few days, I have regularly heard the refrain “This is not Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Even the people protesting the events at Badami Bagh, Lahore, carried banners yearning for “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. A few months ago, the MQM was also aiming to hold a referendum, asking people if they wanted the “Taliban’s Pakistan”, or “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Often, people with a liberal bent in Pakistan quote Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech and want Pakistan to be modelled on the vision presented in it. But let me tell you the bitter truth: this is Jinnah’s Pakistan!
Why? First, simply because except for the lone August 11 speech, there is nothing much in Jinnah’s utterances, which points towards a secular or even mildly religious state. The August 11, 1947 speech was a rare, only once presented, vision. No wonder then that the Government of Pakistan, through secretary general Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, initially censored the rather liberal parts of the speech. Certainly, this change of mind on Jinnah’s part was a shock for many in the Muslim League, especially since here was a person who, not so long ago, had promised Islamic rule! In his address to the Muslims of India on Eid in 1945, for example, Jinnah had noted: “Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually”. Many such speeches can be quoted, which clearly indicated that Jinnah had promised a country based on Islamic principles — rather than secular ones — to the people. No surprise then that Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar pointed out in the debate over the Objectives Resolution in March 1949 that while Jinnah had made some promises to the minorities, he had also made some promises to the majority, and the introduction of an Islamic state was one of them. The debate over an Islamic system still continues.
Secondly, Jinnah was quite clear that the Muslims of India were one compact community and that their sole representative was the Muslim League. Therefore, any dissension from the Muslim League mantle meant that non-Muslim League Muslims could not even call themselves Muslims, at least politically. The best example of this closed door policy was when Jinnah insisted that the Congress could not include a Muslim member in its list of ministers (even though Maulana Azad was its president) since only the Muslim League had the right to nominate Muslims to the interim government in 1946. Thus, one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, (and others) were prevented from joining the government. With such a control over who is a “real” Muslim (though primarily political at this juncture), it was not inconceivable that such notions would continue after independence and soon permeate the religious realm — and this is exactly what has happened.
Thirdly, Jinnah himself gave the example of undemocratic government. Not only did Jinnah preside over cabinet meetings (remember Pervez Musharraf?), one of his first acts after independence was to dismiss the popularly-elected government of Dr Khan Sahib in the then-NWFP on August 22, 1947. While it was a foregone conclusion that a League ministry would soon take over in the province, the manner in which the dismissal was done created precedence. Jinnah did not wait for the assembly itself to bring a motion of no confidence against the premier and nor did he call for new elections, both of which would have been clearly democratic and would have certainly brought in a Muslim League government. Instead, he simply got the Congress ministry dismissed and a Muslim League ministry installed — this procedural change was very significant at this early stage and set an example. Jinnah was also, extraordinarily, a minister in his own government, setting a clear precedence for future heads of state (followed by Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf) to be very comfortable being heads of state and ministers at the same time.
Therefore, Jinnah’s Pakistan is an Islamic state, which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like and is not very democratic. Imagining it in any other way is living in a dreamland and refusing to accept the reality. However, this does not mean that Pakistan is unworkable. Pakistan might be saddled with issues of the past, but surely we can accept and solve them, if we want.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2013.
Solomon2 comment: Yes, it's over two years old, but isn't it still relevant?Jinnah’s Pakistan
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Published: March 18, 2013
The writer is the Chairperson of the History Department at Forman Christian College, Lahore
Over the past few days, I have regularly heard the refrain “This is not Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Even the people protesting the events at Badami Bagh, Lahore, carried banners yearning for “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. A few months ago, the MQM was also aiming to hold a referendum, asking people if they wanted the “Taliban’s Pakistan”, or “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Often, people with a liberal bent in Pakistan quote Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech and want Pakistan to be modelled on the vision presented in it. But let me tell you the bitter truth: this is Jinnah’s Pakistan!
Why? First, simply because except for the lone August 11 speech, there is nothing much in Jinnah’s utterances, which points towards a secular or even mildly religious state. The August 11, 1947 speech was a rare, only once presented, vision. No wonder then that the Government of Pakistan, through secretary general Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, initially censored the rather liberal parts of the speech. Certainly, this change of mind on Jinnah’s part was a shock for many in the Muslim League, especially since here was a person who, not so long ago, had promised Islamic rule! In his address to the Muslims of India on Eid in 1945, for example, Jinnah had noted: “Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually”. Many such speeches can be quoted, which clearly indicated that Jinnah had promised a country based on Islamic principles — rather than secular ones — to the people. No surprise then that Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar pointed out in the debate over the Objectives Resolution in March 1949 that while Jinnah had made some promises to the minorities, he had also made some promises to the majority, and the introduction of an Islamic state was one of them. The debate over an Islamic system still continues.
Secondly, Jinnah was quite clear that the Muslims of India were one compact community and that their sole representative was the Muslim League. Therefore, any dissension from the Muslim League mantle meant that non-Muslim League Muslims could not even call themselves Muslims, at least politically. The best example of this closed door policy was when Jinnah insisted that the Congress could not include a Muslim member in its list of ministers (even though Maulana Azad was its president) since only the Muslim League had the right to nominate Muslims to the interim government in 1946. Thus, one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, (and others) were prevented from joining the government. With such a control over who is a “real” Muslim (though primarily political at this juncture), it was not inconceivable that such notions would continue after independence and soon permeate the religious realm — and this is exactly what has happened.
Thirdly, Jinnah himself gave the example of undemocratic government. Not only did Jinnah preside over cabinet meetings (remember Pervez Musharraf?), one of his first acts after independence was to dismiss the popularly-elected government of Dr Khan Sahib in the then-NWFP on August 22, 1947. While it was a foregone conclusion that a League ministry would soon take over in the province, the manner in which the dismissal was done created precedence. Jinnah did not wait for the assembly itself to bring a motion of no confidence against the premier and nor did he call for new elections, both of which would have been clearly democratic and would have certainly brought in a Muslim League government. Instead, he simply got the Congress ministry dismissed and a Muslim League ministry installed — this procedural change was very significant at this early stage and set an example. Jinnah was also, extraordinarily, a minister in his own government, setting a clear precedence for future heads of state (followed by Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf) to be very comfortable being heads of state and ministers at the same time.
Therefore, Jinnah’s Pakistan is an Islamic state, which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like and is not very democratic. Imagining it in any other way is living in a dreamland and refusing to accept the reality. However, this does not mean that Pakistan is unworkable. Pakistan might be saddled with issues of the past, but surely we can accept and solve them, if we want.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2013.
A good democratic leader may tack back and forth but is going to reward people from the constituencies who died for his cause. While Jinnah gave his famous August 1947 speech what do you think was happening in the streets? The hundreds of thousands of Muslims of the subcontinent who fought and slew their Hindu neighbors expected some reward for these efforts - robbery alone wasn't enough unless it carried the legitimacy of a higher cause of some sort to wash the blood from their hands. Macbeth on a national scale. That, I think, was behind the grassroots part of the push for the Objectives Resolution and the attendant ills that followed....However after 1947 and with the goal achieved he realized the bottle he had oppened. That is when we get speaches from him that go against what he had said before 1947. Jinnah was a secular man, no doubt about it -
Does "evolving" mean embracing militancy and terror and empire and war for the foreseeable future? Can it mean acknowledging past and current wrongs and working for everyone to keep their own with civil and property rights for all and equal dignity for all law-abiding people? Or is doing so too embarrassing (or too anti-Islamic?) to be contemplated out loud by Pakistanis?Ps. However all that does not matter. That is now the past. Each generation must take stock of what it wants and then move foward. We have to evolve.
The Chinese say, "Give a man to fish and you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime." They do not say that when you teach a man to fish you are forever responsible for what he chooses to do in life.For years supporting mullahs like Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab and Afghan Jihad now Americans will come here and preach us tolerance. These people are your illegal sons -
This doesn't seem to merit the label "untrue" as much as a case of difference of perspective between Muslims and non-Muslims. In which case I'd consider Mr. Bangash's argument to be rebutted - it being up to Muslims to decide if this was done adequately - with Bangash's personal reputation remaining intact. But then one reads stuff like like Jinnah's 1943 address:Jinnah’s Pakistan: a rebuttal By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Mr Yaqoob Khan Bangash’s article “Jinnah’s Pakistan” (March 19) was historically inaccurate and counterfactual. There were three basic claims that Mr Bangash put up, which need to be reviewed in detail.
One of Mr Bangash’s assertions was that since Jinnah claimed that the Muslim League was the sole representative of the Muslims in the 1940s, he was declaring Muslims outside of it non-Muslim. This is untrue. On the contrary, it was Jinnah who was called ‘Kafir-e-Azam’ or the great infidel by Muslims outside the Muslim League...
and I cannot then give Hamdani the benefit of the doubt."...we have reached the stage where there is not the slightest doubt, that the 100 million Mussalmans are with us. When I say 100 million Mussalmans, I mean that 99 per cent of them are with us - leaving aside some who are traitors, cranks, supermen or lunatics -"
Jinnah's words were in great contrast to his deeds, especially going around the British-officered Pakistani Army to stoke conflict with India, the effect being to lock Pakistan's political evolution with himself as leader at the helm. Jinnah as governor-general grabbed the generalship of Pakistan and was not content to leave his reserve powers in abeyance and merely advise and encourage people and review the honesty of bureaucracy like the governor-general of Canada. (This is a recurring theme of Pakistani civilian and military leaders, that once they reach power they try extend it further beyond their proper remit.)Another of Mr Bangash’s claims is that Jinnah’s August 11 speech is a one-off speech or an aberration. This is also completely untrue. Jinnah’s political career, spanning four decades, is a testament to his commitment to religious freedom...There are a multitude of speeches and statements that can be quoted in this regardi, ncluding Jinnah’s famous interview on May 21, 1947 or his 30-odd statements to this effect, as governor general -
To dismiss is easy and within the governor-general's expected remit, given the situation. Yet as I understand it, appointing a new ministry was not in accord with British procedure - that is, not constitutional: the proper response, given the vast scale of political changes, would have been new elections, followed by the appointment of the first-past-the-post party leader to head the NWFP government. Mr. Hamdani does not discuss this and simply asserts the move was constitutional, validated by a later vote of confidence by the existing assembly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sort of "constitutionality" had not been seen in England since the corrupt old days of the Long Parliament of the 1640s.The third claim made by Mr Bangash is about Jinnah’s actions vis-a-vis then-NWFP (present-day Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa), which are again off base. The reason why the Khan Sahib ministry had to be sent packing was because it lost the majority in the assembly and was effectively a minority government.
HI,well whatever our condition are but we are bahdur quom and don't run away and make new mulk out of fear. Saffron brigade looks good on newspaper and tv shows but in ground they are nobody. (bunch of loonies)
A good democratic leader may tack back and forth but is going to reward people from the constituencies who died for his cause. While Jinnah gave his famous August 1947 speech what do you think was happening in the streets? The hundreds of thousands of Muslims of the subcontinent who fought and slew their Hindu neighbors expected some reward for these efforts - robbery alone wasn't enough unless it carried the legitimacy of a higher cause of some sort to wash the blood from their hands. Macbeth on a national scale.
That, I think, was behind the grassroots part of the push for the Objectives Resolution and the attendant ills that followed.
Does "evolving" mean embracing militancy and terror and empire and war for the foreseeable future? Can it mean acknowledging past and current wrongs and working for everyone to keep their own with civil and property rights for all and equal dignity for all law-abiding people? Or is doing so too embarrassing (or too anti-Islamic?) to be contemplated out loud by Pakistanis?
The Chinese say, "Give a man to fish and you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime." They do not say that when you teach a man to fish you are forever responsible for what he chooses to do in life.
The most striking thing about America's relationship with the Sauds, Zia, etc. is that America provided the money and means but the decisions on what to do with the assets were made almost entirely by the respective leaders.
This is by mutuel arrangement. Both parties get something out of it.Quite unlike British colonialism or French colonialism or even the United States' contemporary relationships in Central and South America. That's what made the Pakistanis and Sauds seek out Americans as their preferred ally.
Your allowing your nationalism to cloud your thinking. The US officials as a rule avoid shouldering the subject. In fact there is a calculated effort by US officials to avoid any blame from past policies in the Af/Pak region. I fully accept Pakistan is partly responsible. AS regards US official there are some exceptions. I have enormous respect for Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser for at least being candid and not mincing his words.However, Pakistanis like yourself are yet to own up to their responsibility. And almost the first rule American politicians and military officers have is that the U.S. is to take the blame and not say anything to embarrass or contradict their Pakistani counterparts - that's the price of cooperation, to take the blame. So it's going to be up to Pakistanis like yourself to wake up, step forward, and call your leaders to the carpet. How you are to do that in a state where the Higher Education Commission calls on its universities to "remain very vigilant and forestall any activity that in any manner challenge(s) the ideology and principles of Pakistan, and/or perspective of the government of Pakistan" I do not know.
Ps. However all that does not matter. That is now the past. Each generation must take stock of what it wants and then move foward. We have to evolve. Look at the Americans. Not long ago black/white separation was almost a article of faith. Today Obama is the President. We can't stay hostage to the past.