when rickshaws turn jihad against india

[shree835]

This may be your perception. I wish you could come to Pakistan and i could go to India. We could have sit together and witness the realities on both sides.

NO NO ...Please be there at Pakistan and enjoy your happy life... we will take care of our issues ... Don worry at all.

 

[toxic_pus]

That is why a Hindu presided over Pakistan's first constituent assembly, and later become the first law and labor minister of Pakistan.

That was Jinnah's feeble attempt at fixing a leaky dam with chewing gum.

That is why millions of Bengali Hindu's chose Pakistan under Jogerndranath Mandal.

Even more chose India.

What can they do when the situation played out differently?

After Jinnah passed away, many Congress supported mullahs like Mufti Mahmood and other Deobandi Ulema as well as Maulana Maududi jumped over to Pakistan initiating their Islamization campaign.

Liaqat Ali Khan was partial to anti-Pakistan mullah baradran who started to target liberal and Non-Sunni founding fathers of Pakistan. One by one all of them were targeted and removed including the Hindu leadership of Pakistan.

All this culminated in the grand mullah ****** show of 1953 against Sir Zafarullah and Ahmadis which was violently quashed by the army.

The situation was such that the secular foundations of the country was attacked from the get go by the mullah-feudal alliance who were looking to keep their power intact.

India got saved when all these mullahs crossed over here, they can do things that even the best around find hard to deal with.

Ergo the assertion that if foundation is based on hatred then the edifice will eventually be consumed by hatred. One way or the other.

Two more things. Firstly, whichever mullah brigade Congress supported or whatever lapses there had been on the part of Congress, before partition, is absolutely irrelevant to what these mullahs did to their chosen homeland after partition. After creation of Pakistan, controlling these mullahs was your responsibility. Your failure is not Congress' failure.

And secondly, India got saved, so to speak, not because the mullahs crossed over to Pak, but because of our founding fathers' steadfast belief in pluralism and democracy, and refusal to give in to sectarianism. Do not pretend to be the martyr here. You are not. You got what you wanted.

 

[LaBong]

What can they do when the situation played out differently?

After Jinnah passed away, many Congress supported mullahs like Mufti Mahmood and other Deobandi Ulema as well as Maulana Maududi jumped over to Pakistan initiating their Islamization campaign.

Liaqat Ali Khan was partial to anti-Pakistan mullah baradran who started to target liberal and Non-Sunni founding fathers of Pakistan. One by one all of them were targeted and removed including the Hindu leadership of Pakistan.

All this culminated in the grand mullah ****** show of 1953 against Sir Zafarullah and Ahmadis which was violently quashed by the army.

The situation was such that the secular foundations of the country was attacked from the get go by the mullah-feudal alliance who were looking to keep their power intact.

India got saved when all these mullahs crossed over here, they can do things that even the best around find hard to deal with.

Well this is a myth that all Mullahs opposed the movement of Pakistan. I might be stereotyping as well as I'm not very versed about the subject but AFAIK mainly Deobandis opposed the movement while Barevelis supported. There were also Pakistani homegrown Mullahs which supported the movement.

The reasons behind Deoband opposing the movement were both political and religious in nature. While they were afraid of losing their clout to Alighar educated upper-middle class and elite Muslims, there was also religious reason which forbids Muslims to break away from a nation which is Dar-ul-Aman and their were few who wanted the whole subcontinent under Muslim rule, not just moth eaten part of it.

Also we can't paint all Mullah in a fundamentalist colour and show the educated class as stalwarts of tolerance and liberal values. There were good, bad and ugly among both the classes and Jinnah knowing fully well what he is dealing with, came to term with it.


The fact it partition was murky business and those who were involved - Jinnah, Sardar Patel, Moulana Azad, them being a pragmatic lot, looked for their(or their communities) interest and convenience without thinking consequences going forward. Only Gandhi was steadfast at his ideology. I wish SC Bose was around just to see how the drama was going to unfold.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The fact it partition was murky business and those who were involved - Jinnah, Sardar Patel, Moulana Azad, them being a pragmatic lot, looked for their(or their communities) interest and convenience without thinking consequences going forward. Only Gandhi was steadfast at his ideology. I wish SC Bose was around just to see how the drama was going to unfold.

sadly that was'nt enough for Nathuram. I am really not interested in the reasons and justifications about why he decided to execute the founder of India as it will drag the discussion even further away from the subject.

we have already gone beyond the Rickshaw drivers and political messages on their vehicles.
you guys have seen your leaders being killed for ethnic reasons and we have had our share due to an element of religious extremism, (Benazir, although its controversial who actually killed her). I cant really say which type of assassination was "less bad" than the other.

but one thing is clear that the assassinations from Gandhi to Rajev mean that India is not also completely immune to its own set of problems. (but hey, lets no talk about this should we? lets keep focus away from self

 

[T-Faz]

That was Jinnah's feeble attempt at fixing a leaky dam with chewing gum.

Feeble attempt would have been something done after a while not from the beginning. Your understanding of the said event is quite biased, and so the comment that you made. If I made a country tomorrow and put a Hindu to preside over the constituent assembly, this would be an indication of the secular foundations of a country. A feeble attempt would be something ten years down the line but you wouldn't understand.

Even more chose India.

But many chose Pakistan too, what's your reply got to do with my original point.

Ergo the assertion that if foundation is based on hatred then the edifice will eventually be consumed by hatred. One way or the other.

Seems to be the case on your side too, just look at the tremulous times your country went through in the eighties and the recurring problems that your country faces. The foundations were such that the "ediface" will all remain unstable and history proves my point.

Two more things. Firstly, whichever mullah brigade Congress supported or whatever lapses there had been on the part of Congress, before partition, is absolutely irrelevant to what these mullahs did to their chosen homeland after partition. After creation of Pakistan, controlling these mullahs was your responsibility. Your failure is not Congress' failure.

Truth isn't irrelevant, its what sets the tone for the future.

The congress didn't have any qualms in getting dirty and using Islamists to hold on to power. They knew that no matter what the outcome, the mullah party will have to move to Pakistan.

And secondly, India got saved, so to speak, not because the mullahs crossed over to Pak, but because of our founding fathers' steadfast belief in pluralism and democracy, and refusal to give in to sectarianism. Do not pretend to be the martyr here. You are not. You got what you wanted.

The pluralism sure made a mess of decades, a decade of development and you are barking as if India is as great a nation as USA.

Don't pretend to know history when you don't even know the dirt that your parties used to get up to.

Well this is a myth that all Mullahs opposed the movement of Pakistan. I might be stereotyping as well as I'm not very versed about the subject but AFAIK mainly Deobandis opposed the movement while Barevelis supported. There were also Pakistani homegrown Mullahs which supported the movement.

All mullahs is just about right as no Islamic party supported the idea of Pakistan. A few mullahs supported Pakistan but no party was behind the movement. Though a Deobandi cleric called Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani created Jamaat-e-Ulema Islam to support Pakistan, it was later taken over by Muft Mahmood, aka congress mullah no.2, and father of Maulana Fazlur Rahman.

As for Barelvis, you can't name me one well known name amongst the cadre of the Muslim League. The only leaders of any religious group to head the Muslim League were Sir Agha Khan and Sir Zafarullah Khan.

The reasons behind Deoband opposing the movement were both political and religious in nature. While they were afraid of losing their clout to Alighar educated upper-middle class and elite Muslims, there was also religious reason which forbids Muslims to break away from a nation which is Dar-ul-Aman and their were few who wanted the whole subcontinent under Muslim rule, not just moth eaten part of it.

Deobandi's also had a plan that a united India would be a better target for eventual Islamization than just a country of Muslims. All the while the Muslim League was just looking to safeguard the rights of Muslims and other minorities of British India.

Also we can't paint all Mullah in a fundamentalist colour and show the educated class as stalwarts of tolerance and liberal values. There were good, bad and ugly among both the classes and Jinnah knowing fully well what he is dealing with, came to term with it.

Read this: http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/157033-punjabs-problem.html

The fact it partition was murky business and those who were involved - Jinnah, Sardar Patel, Moulana Azad, them being a pragmatic lot, looked for their(or their communities) interest and convenience without thinking consequences going forward. Only Gandhi was steadfast at his ideology. I wish SC Bose was around just to see how the drama was going to unfold.

Gandhi life wouldn't have ended the way it did if he was so steadfast, there wouldn't be a Pakistan if he was so steadfast.

Your bias limits how you view history, read the above linked thread for an unbiased view.