What would have Jinnah thought of Ajmal Kasab and gang, wonders SC

[Redbull]

We are not discussing religious history, we are not discussing world history, neither are we discussing Hindu history. We are discussing historical events related to Pakistan and its related Muslim history.

Why is it that we don't include Hindu contribution to 1857. We do, but not in as many details. Indians also do the same and do not highlight much of Muslim contributions in other spheres as well. I responded to your questions in the other thread - probably you didn't read it.

Pakistans history is Pakistan's history, it is not Muslim or Hindu. I replied to you on that thread, but you didn't respond. According the quote I showed you, the Hindu contribution is not shown, if Indians don't want to show Muslim contribution then that's up to them, why should we lie in order to hide other peoples contribution, we should present the truth, not some of it but all of it.

 

[Riteon]

But this is against defining your identity and creation of your nation based on two nation theory and Pakistani Hindu being bashed in the textbook of the land they always lived for thousands of years.

Oh they dont mean the paksitani Hindus...they mean the Evil yindoos of India ......also they dont mean All Yindoos...just the Caste Yindoos.....And come one When God itself doesnt care , why should they care about the kaffirs !!

 

[jayron]

In that case we should start right with the tribal invasion in Kashmir way, way back .

And that happened under the democratic, decent Jinnah. If he could orchestrate direct action day and the tribal invasion of Kashmir , 26/11 is only slightly below his standard.

 

[KS]

If only Jinnah had been alive for few more years we would all have known what he really was, rather than what he is being made to be.

Luckily he went away soon and has had an aura of divineness built around his personality.

 

[Contrarian]

huh ... killing people in India by teaching our people the correct perspective of historical facts. Where do you come from. Your thinking is similar to what @contrarian posted a comment in a thread. Let me answer him and you as well - and then you can comment....


[/I]
One can understand the Indian resistance to Two Nation Theory. The two nation theory identified that Muslims and Hindus are two different sets of people with different religious beliefs, different cultural precepts, and different understanding of each other’s history etc etc. Therefore, when we talk of two nation theory, we have to include Hindus in it.

The involvement of India came in when Muslims demanded a separate homeland and one of the basis was the two nation theory. Therefore, when two nation theory is discussed it is not between India and Pakistan, it is between Hindus and Muslims.

Pakistan is also a diverse, multi-ethnic and multi-religious country and so is India. The two nation theory is between two sets of people and not two countries.

TNT or not. Pakistan exists. End of discussion on TNT.

My question is TODAY, why do Pakistani's today talk of India as Hindu and Hindu's as Indians. Why do Pakistani's mix India and Hindu. We dont do it. We dont call or think of Muslims as any but Indians or Budhists or Sikhs or Parsis. We are all Indians.

And yet, Pakistani's cling on to the notion to keep justifying TNT by saying/feeling India is Hindu.

 

[Ticker]

Pakistans history is Pakistan's history, it is not Muslim or Hindu. I replied to you on that thread, but you didn't respond. According the quote I showed you, the Hindu contribution is not shown, if Indians don't want to show Muslim contribution then that's up to them, why should we lie in order to hide other peoples contribution, we should present the truth, not some of it but all of it.

The way you explain our history, if I may be bold enough to say, that you need to read more. You will find the answers.

Let me give you my opinion about why Hindu contribution may not have been covered as much as you thought it should have been.

Though during the uprising many Hindus and Muslims fought together against the British, many Hindus and Muslims sided with British and also fought against those who revolted. However, when the uprising was crushed it were the Indian Muslims who suffered the most. Majority of Hindus in the aftermath took advantage of the situation and not only sided with the British but also gradually replaced the Muslims in almost all government departments and functions. Muslims took the major blame of the revolt and not the Hindus, the British as well the Hindus of that era encouraged this perception.

All the blame was placed on Muslims and they became pariahs in their own land and most of this happened with the connivance of Hindus. The Muslims suffered tremendously in these environment. It was people like Sir Syed Ahmed along with many many others who attempted to bring the Muslims back into the fold through efforts aimed at re-educating them, encouraging them to join the mainstream and the government departments etc.

This brought to fore the Hindu Muslim divide as well. The Hindus preferred to serve the British and literally took revenge by working against the Muslims in all fora, for conquering India and ruling them for hundreds of years. Various Hindu movements originated and Hindu Muslim riots started happening in different parts of British India. Muslims, being in minority suffered tremendously in that era.

This is one of the reasons why Hindu contribution does not find much mention in our text books. Does the Indian text books mention that Muslims suffered during this era - no it didn't and i assure you that it would never.

I am not here to influence you or anybody. I am very clear in my understanding of our history. You make up your own mind.

TNT or not. Pakistan exists. End of discussion on TNT.

My question is TODAY, why do Pakistani's today talk of India as Hindu and Hindu's as Indians. Why do Pakistani's mix India and Hindu. We dont do it. We dont call or think of Muslims as any but Indians or Budhists or Sikhs or Parsis. We are all Indians.

And yet, Pakistani's cling on to the notion to keep justifying TNT by saying/feeling India is Hindu.

Why do you after over 65 years still call Pakistan, Muslim Pakistan. Most of you here talk nothing but Muslim this and Muslim that in Pakistan. We are also a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, why do you people still keep it as grudge of sorts against Muslims. Why don't you just call Pakistan and mean it as Pakistan instead of it being Muslim Pakistan.

Let the bygones be bygones - and let it begin from you guys.

Oh they dont mean the paksitani Hindus...they mean the Evil yindoos of India ......also they dont mean All Yindoos...just the Caste Yindoos.....And come one When God itself doesnt care , why should they care about the kaffirs !!

You are so intelligent aren't you. You see the future and can judge the response because your own thinking is skewed and is bigoted.

 

[Contrarian]

However, most of Indians here feel that India is fair in presenting its history. Let me quote from a mainstream Indian media outlet’s critique on India’s text books as Indians here have objected to my earlier reference.

These excerpts are from:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1523/15230140.htm

You just lost your own argument.

1. The report is conducted by NCERT on books used to teach in some schools in UP.
Fact 1: NCERT and ICSE books are THE text books for majority of India. They are defacto standard of what Indian students study.

2. The report conducted by NCERT shows that the State itself was concerned about even non NCERT books being used in some states and wanted to correct it.

3. The report is 14 years old ! That should tell you something.

People have given you a link Ticker. Please feel free to read ANY NCERT book today and find problems.

As for your allegation - NO. No contribution of Muslims is shown less in NCERT books. They are contributions by Indians and are valued as such by India.

Unlike Pakistan - we donot believe India's history to be Hindu history and consequently unlike Pakistan, great deeds of all Indians are highlighted.

You are grasping at straws here. You say that because every nation and India does it, Pakistan should do it too. Laughable.

 

[Redbull]

You are grasping at straws here. You say that because every nation and India does it, Pakistan should do it too. Laughable

This is exactly my problem with his/her argument.

 

[Contrarian]

This is one of the reasons why Hindu contribution does not find much mention in our text books. Does the Indian text books mention that Muslims suffered during this era - no it didn't and i assure you that it would never.

A classic example to prove my point.

We dont say Muslims suffered or Hindus suffered. We say Indians suffered. Or some sections and communities suffered. We dont say Hindus or Muslims in such cases.

So that the future generations dont carry a victim mentality or become hateful.

This is the difference between Pakistani and Indian thinking.

This is exactly my problem with his/her argument.

Let alone that the idea of doing it because others do it is laughable.

I am trying to say that we dont do it. Links have been posted for all to see and read any of the books.

India will not be able to integrate if we do such things. India will only become integrated if we dont segregate communities. People here realize it. The administrators realize it. The books here reflect it.

 

[Redbull]

A classic example to prove my point.

We dont say Muslims suffered or Hindus suffered. We say Indians suffered. Or some sections and communities suffered. We dont say Hindus or Muslims in such cases.

So that the future generations dont carry a victim mentality or become hateful.

This is the difference between Pakistani and Indian thinking.



Let alone that the idea of doing it because others do it is laughable.

I am trying to say that we dont do it. Links have been posted for all to see and read any of the books.

That is the point I made to him/her in the other thread, why on earth is 1857 spoken of like a Muslim Jihad against the British?

 

[jayron]

If only Jinnah had been alive for few more years we would all have known what he really was, rather than what he is being made to be.

Luckily he went away soon and has had an aura of divineness built around his personality.

Exactly. He died early for his own good. Had he been alive a little longer he would have met the same fate as Mr.Bangabandhu.

 

[KS]

^ Precisely. Lucky Jinnah and Gandhi.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Exactly. He died early for his own good. Had he been alive a little longer he would have met the same fate as Mr.Bangabandhu.

^ Precisely. Lucky Jinnah and Gandhi.

It is difficult to understand this point of view. We have Gandhi's track record in politics from 1893 onwards. That is a period of 55 years. We have Jinnah's record from 1904 onwards, a period of 44 years. Suggesting that there is insufficient evidence on which to judge their achievements, or what they stood for, what their intentions might have been and what they intended is purely polemical, said only to cast doubt on some aspect or the other of their track record.

Regarding their vulnerability, Gandhi was assassinated. This was long before Bangabandhu, and at the hands of the same lawless element that continues to remain lawless, and to press its demands by any means that it finds handy. He himself had introduced defiance of the law and of civil authority into the freedom struggle, an ideological turn that has cost India a huge price in terms of the methods that opponents of policy or of implementation adopted to get their ends. There was nothing that his reputation gained, or lost, in terms of the timing of his murder.

Jinnah died untimely, leaving an ideological vacuum in his country. There was a huge effort launched by the intellectuals of Pakistan, including religious intellectuals, to refine their reason for existence, their national ideology. It is quite clear that his successors possessed not a fraction of Jinnah's reasoning and argument building capability. It is also quite clear that they had none of them the temerity to challenge him. Finally, his own intentions are signaled not merely in his final speeches, which is what people dwell on to the exclusion of all else, but also in his existing track record. The ambiguity about his intentions for the new country that he had formed related only to the statements and speeches of his last years and months. His previous record admits of no doubt or hesitation.

Certainly, any talk of his meeting the fate of Bangabandhu is ridiculous. Bangabandhu was killed after a period of increasing political tension, caused very largely by his own dictatorial intentions and actions. There was nothing remotely similar in the case of Jinnah, who had all the modernizing elements secure in his palm from the outset.

 

[Ticker]

You just lost your own argument.

1. The report is conducted by NCERT on books used to teach in some schools in UP.
Fact 1: NCERT and ICSE books are THE text books for majority of India. They are defacto standard of what Indian students study.

I had just posted excerpts. If you had cared to read a bit, you'd have found out that UP, West Bengal and Rajasthan were also covered in some detail. And, I had posted other links as well in other thread which was closed. So much more existed. At that time you gentlemen said the link was poor.

2. The report conducted by NCERT shows that the State itself was concerned about even non NCERT books being used in some states and wanted to correct it.

3. The report is 14 years old ! That should tell you something.

Yes this report is 14 years old. The earlier was lesser. Just think that those who studied under those environments would now be placed in different tiers of government, business, and other societal positions. Most of the grown ups in India have studied under those environment would have been influenced.

People have given you a link Ticker. Please feel free to read ANY NCERT book today and find problems.

As for your allegation - NO. No contribution of Muslims is shown less in NCERT books. They are contributions by Indians and are valued as such by India.

Unlike Pakistan - we donot believe India's history to be Hindu history and consequently unlike Pakistan, great deeds of all Indians are highlighted.

Those who have read the reports, this one and the one which was posted by me earlier leave no doubt in the mind that Indian text books were doctored.

And how do you know that in Pakistan we teach history as only Muslim history. We also teach them Pakistan's history.

You are grasping at straws here. You say that because every nation and India does it, Pakistan should do it too. Laughable.

I am not grasping at strws, I am presenting facts as written by Indians in Indian media. I don't know why do you people have difficulty understanding what your own people are saying, and saying it loud and clear that bigotry prevails. Instead if blaming Pakistan for every ill in the world, please look in your own backyard - it may need a bit of cleaning.

I agree both our countries need efforts to let the bygones be bygones. And yes Pakistan has to play its role as well and need to move forward - however, you as Indians need to let it. Your comments which are full of hatred and schmuck here don't represent that, and makes me feel and others too that your text books do present bigotry.

We both as Pakistan and India need to get over this.

 

[Contrarian]

That is the point I made to him/her in the other thread, why on earth is 1857 spoken of like a Muslim Jihad against the British?

It is no open secret. Pakistan will start see'ing positive changes the day they change their syllabus to make it :
1. Less hateful content towards other minorites - including removing the snide couple of words here and there like 'cunning hindus' which create a negative impression in the minds of young children.
2. Have a more inclusive syllabus where all achievements by people of any religion born in Pakistani territory are not just noted but celebrated.

Pakistan will prosper far more with the above 2 factors than without.