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

[jayron]

^ Precisely. Lucky Jinnah and Gandhi.

Gandhi was way smarter and wiser . It isn't without reason that he is still remembered as a noble figure around the world. For all his misgivings, Gandhi is still the most charismatic , iconic leader modern India produced.

 

[Contrarian]

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 comment 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.

Mate, lets be frank here. I have posted the reasons why what you posted regarding Indian books is wrong.

The study was conducted by NCERT about regional books. NCERT and ICSE are the national education boards who publish their own books which are the defacto standard of education in India. Links have been given, make the effort to read any NCERT/ICSE book. I will reiterate, these are THE text books of India!

The fact that NCERT itself conducted the study should tell you that they were concerned enough that even regional books should not have any bigoted material, let alone national text books.

If you persist in not listening, i cannot force you. It is your wish entirely.

India is quite rather over all the partition and TNT business mate. All i said was why do Pakistani's call Indians as Hindu's when we are clearly not all Hindus. We have a sizeable population of non Hindus who are all equally proud to be of their religions as well as their country. When Indians heap scorn on Pakistan, it is what the name suggests - Indian. Not Hindu. Indians dont have a favourable view of Pakistan. Yet Pakistani's seem to be comfortable in thinking that only Hindus have a negative view of Pakistan. Maybe it suits the narrative there?

As mentioned by another member, we donot equate Pakistan with Islam. We treat Pakistan as a geographical entity and thus is why Muslims in India are Indians. Muslims in Indonesia are Indonesians.

Our identity is not derived from the TNT. We have no need to. You choose your path, we chose ours. Both are fine. That initself is not an issue. But bigotry in text books is something entirely different.

We are comfortable with being multi-religious, people are concerned about what is printed in text books, when you see NCERT itself taking this up, you should guess how important this would be in India, and thus we have progressed massively in social cohesion.

 

[jayron]

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.

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

 

[KS]

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.

I'm not saying they would have certainly become bad , but I'm saying how they were pre-Independence fighting the british is hardly a measure of how they will actually govern an independent state or what will be their policies in nation building. It is certainly up for debate. They may have continued their shining legacy or could have gone the bangabandhu way. Bangabandhu actually lived to go that way, Gandhi and Jinnah met untimely deaths without that chance. And were lucky in that sense.

Just like how Anna Hazare proved to be a good agitationist, but when it comes to actually ruling or fighting election he proved he doesnt have it in him.

 

[Ticker]

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.

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.

This is a massive double speak. On one hand you try to portray to the world that we are secular and look we don't have these things in our text books, which is incorrect, and on the other hand your security forces kill and carry out massive human right abuses against your minorities.

Your previous Home Minister is accused for ordering massacre of Hashimpura Muslims. Male members were taken out, Bosnia style, removed to a location outside the city and killed in cold blood. Over 40 of them. And Hashimpura is not located in Kashmir - it is located in the heart of India. And then you say that oh, we want to integrate all minorities of India as Indians.

Who are you guys trying to fool.

Again and again you are telling me, please read NCERT and other official text books, these are not spreading hatred. Yet your own reports clearly mention that they do. Still you blatantly disagree. What a sham.

And then there are some apologist so-called Pakistanis join you in trashing their own because of their so-called high moral values. They can't face the world because they don't know their own history and they don't know how to defend it - how would they know how to defend it, when they have no idea what it is.

I am a Pakistani and you can lump it.

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

This is nothing but emotional rhetoric and a blatant display of manipulation of history. You can believe what you want, it is going to change neither the historical perspective nor the realities that exist on ground.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

Let us take these one by one, from neither a hagiographic point of view, nor a demonising point of view.

About leading a party of rich land-owners, not of the poor masses, this is an extrapolation of the Indian Congress' support base upon that of the Muslim League, an historical error. The Congress mobilised the rural and the urban masses, mostly but not entirely. Those who turned out for Congress programmes were NOT exclusively the poor, they included a wide and significant sampling of the nascent professional classes as well, and were strongly supported by and funded by the business community. G. D. Birla was well-known to have exercised enormous influence over Gandhi, much to the consternation of the socialistically minded Nehru. So we have the myth of the Congress being a mass party exclusively; it was a mass party but was led by the professionals. When we look at the Muslim League, we find that its support was NOT in the areas that now constitute Pakistan, but in the areas of UP, Bihar and Bombay. Bengal, too, gave it a quirky level of support, marching in the same direction but with a strong tendency to go their own way. What happened in Bengal was not entirely a matter which developed after independence and partition. When it became clear that Jinnah would have to have an alternative, an appalling, fearful alternative to his desire to push forward the envelope of protection enjoyed by the Muslim community beyond what they had got already in 1919 and in 1935, he mentioned partition. This was to be the AIML doomsday option, the then equivalent of the nuclear bomb. The Congress was expected to fall apart under the fear of this apocalyptic threat, and grant the AIML their concessions. In order to flesh out this threat, Jinnah had to define which areas should be taken out of the existing Indian colony. It was demographic logic, not political logic, that prevailed; the north-west and the east had proportionately more Muslims than any other part, so they were to be taken out.

Unfortunately, all the components of these havens were originally opposed to, if not outright hostile to the Muslim League. The
Sindhi leader G. M. Sated, was not pleased at the thought of being boxed up with the Punjab; Bacha Khan had his own plans for the future of what is today K-P,; the Baluch state of Kalat and its rulers were inclined towards India; even the Punjab was under the Unionists and their constituent feudals.

If Jinnah had to make headway to achieve the safety for Muslim aspirations that he sought, and that the ML had implicitly mandated him to seek, he had to play ball with these disparate and more than notionally hostile elements. Since there was only one course of action, Jinnah plunged into a campaign of winning over these areas. It is interesting to note from the contemporary point of view that most of his compromises with his democratic secular principles were made in these difficult days, during conversations, or public addresses, or discussions with feudal chiefs in the Punjab; reassuring the backward, regressive Pir of Ipi; winning over a Baloch population that didn't much know what was going on.

It was for these two reasons, the original composition of the ML, and the situation on the ground in the north-west, that created a situation in which Jinnah led a party not of the masses exclusively.

Let us look at the other points one at a time.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

Asking for more value for a Muslim vote than for a Hindu - or any other community - was precisely an extension of the arrangements of 1919, followed by the 1935 Act. The community continued to be fearful; there could only be one way forward.

 

[KS]

^ Still doesnt make it justified especially from a Hindu point of view.

The ultimate minority is the individual himself.

 

[Riteon]

Mate, lets be frank here. I have posted the reasons why what you posted regarding Indian books is wrong.

Our identity is not derived from the TNT. We have no need to. You choose your path, we chose ours. Both are fine. That initself is not an issue. But bigotry in text books is something entirely different.

We are comfortable with being multi-religious, people are concerned about what is printed in text books, when you see NCERT itself taking this up, you should guess how important this would be in India, and thus we have progressed massively in social cohesion.

Contrarian

dude Why dont you leave the T boy alone....Debating to Argue and Debating to understand......you know here he falls right .
Only minds that can become a pot can be filled , you cant fill a mountain

 

[Joe Shearer]

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

Regarding the primitive mediaeval TNT, it was first enunciated by Vinayak Savarkar as an exclusionary measure. It was thereafter taken up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Why blame others for what the majority community had brought out on its own? Jinnah found that a good case could be made out of this ridiculous theory, and proceeded to argue that case. It reflects credit to him
That he made such supple, effective use of what fate had left at his hand.

 

[Ticker]

Mate, lets be frank here. I have posted the reasons why what you posted regarding Indian books is wrong.

The study was conducted by NCERT about regional books. NCERT and ICSE are the national education boards who publish their own books which are the defacto standard of education in India. Links have been given, make the effort to read any NCERT/ICSE book. I will reiterate, these are THE text books of India!

The fact that NCERT itself conducted the study should tell you that they were concerned enough that even regional books should not have any bigoted material, let alone national text books.

If you persist in not listening, i cannot force you. It is your wish entirely.

India is quite rather over all the partition and TNT business mate. All i said was why do Pakistani's call Indians as Hindu's when we are clearly not all Hindus. We have a sizeable population of non Hindus who are all equally proud to be of their religions as well as their country. When Indians heap scorn on Pakistan, it is what the name suggests - Indian. Not Hindu. Indians dont have a favourable view of Pakistan. Yet Pakistani's seem to be comfortable in thinking that only Hindus have a negative view of Pakistan. Maybe it suits the narrative there?

As mentioned by another member, we donot equate Pakistan with Islam. We treat Pakistan as a geographical entity and thus is why Muslims in India are Indians. Muslims in Indonesia are Indonesians.

Our identity is not derived from the TNT. We have no need to. You choose your path, we chose ours. Both are fine. That initself is not an issue. But bigotry in text books is something entirely different.

We are comfortable with being multi-religious, people are concerned about what is printed in text books, when you see NCERT itself taking this up, you should guess how important this would be in India, and thus we have progressed massively in social cohesion.

I for one have always used the word Indian and never Hindu unless needed. Even Muslims in India, I have referred to as Indian Muslims. And I have seen here that most Pakistanis also use the word Indian and not Hindu unless a particular community needs to be referred as such.

I however have seen most of the Indians here talk incessantly about Islamic terrorism and Muslim terrorism and try and make it synonymous with Pakistan.

Much of what you have said does make ample sense and I appreciate it. A lot of work has to go in before realising the intent. And I sincerely hope that it can come true.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

The happenings of Direct Action Day are wrapped in mystery. For starters, there was little violence outside Kolkata, nowhere near the levels that accompanied even supposed non-violent protests by the Congress. It was in Kolkata that the situation broke down, partly because the Muslim League administration actively interfered with the police, and the Army refused to intervene.

If it were Jinnah's intention to shed blood, a trait that he had nowhere displayed before, there would have been bloody rioting in many more areas. As it is, much of the sickening slaughter occurred in a location where his authority was distinctly ovrshadowed by the local Muslim League leadership. Blaming him for the killings is not really such an open-and-shut thing. It also was alien to anything that he had done before.

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

Regarding his appointment of himself as the Governor General, it is not quite clear why this should be considered objectionable. There was no stipulation, certainly not from the UK, that Mountbatten would be retained as the common chief. That possibility, rejected by Jinnah, to Mountbatten's chagrin, was promoted by Mountbatten alone. He was known to have had that massive streak of vanity in his character, and it was that vanity that was wounded by Jinnah's refusal. The decision of the Congress to agree to his retention was certainly no part of the deal with the British; the feeling of mutual dependability between Congrews leaders and the Viceroy had much to do with it.

I judge Jinnah by his actions during his final days. His leading of a party not of poor masses but of rich landowners, asking for more value to a muslim vote as opposed to a hindu vote in a united india, when it didnt't work, coming up with a medieval philosophy called TNT,istigating masses during direct action day, appointing himself as the governer general of Pakistan , invading Kashmir not with is army but using tribals , not of these actions paint a rosy picture of him.

Finally,on the subject of Kashmir, I wish to abstain - very strangely for me. The reason is simple.

I have argued, relying on the facts, against the Pakistani case on Kashmir. I still believe that the Indian case, based on popular support and the ruler's decision, is sound.

However, when considering the behaviour of Jinnah and the Pakistani leadership, there is sufficient evidence to say that they were entitled to their point of view prior to the invasion. For that reason, it does not seem reasonable to deal with that issue in trms of Jinnah's track record.

I'm not saying they would have certainly become bad , but I'm saying how they were pre-Independence fighting the british is hardly a measure of how they will actually govern an independent state or what will be their policies in nation building. It is certainly up for debate. They may have continued their shining legacy or could have gone the bangabandhu way. Bangabandhu actually lived to go that way, Gandhi and Jinnah met untimely deaths without that chance. And were lucky in that sense.

Just like how Anna Hazare proved to be a good agitationist, but when it comes to actually ruling or fighting election he proved he doesnt have it in him.

Reasonable enough. But we do have some idea of their capabilities based on their political behaviour in past and bygone years. There was nothing inconsistent with his career and pattern of behaviour in his actions after independence. Therefore, applying Ockham's Razor, we should judge him by his most likely behaviour.

 

[Joe Shearer]

^ Still doesnt make it justified especially from a Hindu point of view.

The ultimate minority is the individual himself.

This is possible only when all the other aspects of identity are actualised. We go through our quest for identity in a hierarchical way. In our case, we have sought our religious identity first. In India, we then actualised our linguistic identity (the linguistic reorganization), our ethnic identity (the pledge to the Tamils not to impose Hindi on them), our caste identity (through V. P. Singh's vi piously efficient invocation of the Mandal Commission Report), as well as allowing the Sikhs to realize their religious identity to its fullest extent possible within the constitution. Unfortunately we still have two or three iterations to go through before we can look at individual liberties, leave alone the human rights of women, children and the differently-abled.

 

[KS]

This is possible only when all the other aspects of identity are actualised. We go through our quest for identity in a hierarchical way. In our case, we have sought our religious identity first. In India, we then actualised our linguistic identity (the linguistic reorganization), our ethnic identity (the pledge to the Tamils not to impose Hindi on them), our caste identity (through V. P. Singh's vi piously efficient invocation of the Mandal Commission Report), as well as allowing the Sikhs to realize their religious identity to its fullest extent possible within the constitution. Unfortunately we still have two or three iterations to go through before we can look at individual liberties, leave alone the human rights of women, children and the differently-abled.

Fair enough. But the point made was the Muslims at that time might have felt insecurity or threatened and demanded what they demanded..but it still doesn't make sense from a Hindu point of view. Why should Hindus let go of the advantage they had by virtue of their numbers ?

Dont we prepare dustbowls for the Australians when they visit india and Kiwis give us green tops in Auckland ?

Personally I think it has more to do with the loss of the Mughal empire and the thought of 'living under the people we ruled' that baulked most of them.

 

[Developereo]

This is now getting to be a silly exercise. You seem to deliberately misconstrue my points. My argument is simple: a crime was committed in India by Pakistanis who planned, financed & executed it from within Pakistan. It is incumbent on Pakistan to track, find evidence & convict those responsible for the crime. India was the target; Pakistan was the base. The evidence obviously will have to be primarily found in Pakistan where the planning, training & initial execution of the operation took place. Any evidence from India, where the end operation took place would normally be limited when compared to where the planning took place. However, in this case, a wealthy of evidence especially phone taps & the capture of a player involved adds substantially to the evidence. Pakistan accepts that the attackers were Pakistani & the planning took place in Pakistan. If one's argument is that Hafiz Saeed was not involved, surely someone else is. Is Pakistan arguing that no one was involved? Obviously not, so someone must be charged if the case has to come to a conclusion. Pakistan has arrested a few, some of whom the Indian government has no idea why for. To then ask for proof by India against gentlemen charged by Pakistan is silly. If Pakistan was merely going about by Indian evidence, then Hafiz Saeed should also be prosecuted. If they are going by a different set of evidences as they must since they seem unable to charge Hafiz Saeed, then they must possess requisite evidence to prosecute.

Pakistan's refusal to consider Headley's testimony and their attempts to block Abu Jundal's extradition to India are hardly about to convince anyone of honourable intentions. More than Headley, Pakistan's desperate attempt to block Jundal's extradition by claiming him to be a Pakistani citizen & then completely reversing position & washing their hands off by claiming he was Indian citizen & therefore suggesting that India was responsible for his actions was quite clearly the last straw. It was the first time that the Indian government unequivocally said that Pakistani state actors were involved. There simply could be no doubt considering Pakistan's desperate attempts to block his arrest & later in light of his revelations, no one in India would buy any Pakistani claims of honest intentions. You are free to suggest that it is all India's fault & ignore the reality of what was said in India, the U.S. & Saudi Arabia but to suggest that the onus of providing evidence must lie with the victim while the perpetrators laugh their way out is hardly about to pass for justice, in anyone's books!

Here's the basic point: India refuses to allow Pakistan to question these individuals first-hand. Put simply, India wants Pakistan to conduct a serious and far-reaching investigation of this kind purely by remote control and through indirect evidence. The case of Jundal fits the pattern: once again, India snatched him away, not allowing Pakistan to question him directly.

No matter how much you guys deny it, the pattern is that GoI has deliberately obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with Pakistan on the matter. GoI is much more interested in grandstanding and political point scoring than in resolving this matter. Now they will hang Kasab, and his testimony will go with him, with only the GoI's word that his testimony was not coerced or doctored.