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.
G.M Syed was part of the Muslim League and was pivotal in getting Sindh to become a part of Pakistan, Sindh being the first province to join the nation. So he was not exactly a traitor but what happened later is a different matter and he had good reasons to turn against the rulers who have taken us down this sorry state.
Even Bacha Khan wanted to meet Jinnah to pledge his support for Pakistan but Abdul Qadeer Khan made sure that this did not happen.
They wanted a secular nation which keeps provincial identities intact as well as an autonomous government.
The opposite happened where Punjab got the major say in matters while others got sidelined, religiously the same occurred too.
Mehru
What makes you think the majority disapprove of a secular state?? In fact it is because the idea of religious ideological state is a minority position that it's proponents use the threat of violence and outright violence to impose it upon the nation of Pakistan -- See, we are Muslims for the most part and we have Christians and Jews and Hindus and Parsi or Zardushti, we don't want anyone to give up their confession or conscience - but all Pakistanis want equality before the law - that's all - but violent minorities (research and see who started this model of threatening society with violence unless society agrees to their positon - hint: Jamaat) are bent on undoing the Quaid e Azam's Pakistan
Mehru
What makes you think the majority disapprove of a secular state?? In fact it is because the idea of religious ideological state is a minority position that it's proponents use the threat of violence and outright violence to impose it upon the nation of Pakistan -- See, we are Muslims for the most part and we have Christians and Jews and Hindus and Parsi or Zardushti, we don't want anyone to give up their confession or conscience - but all Pakistanis want equality before the law - that's all - but violent minorities (research and see who started this model of threatening society with violence unless society agrees to their positon - hint: Jamaat) are bent on undoing the Quaid e Azam's Pakistan
People certainly don't want religious parties in power (going by the votes) but they are also against the concept of secularism too.
That's why i think we should ask for the rights of vulnerable minorities without changing the Islamic identity of the state right now. It should be removed only when people are ready to accept it. It should not be forced. Just my personal opinion.
We already have a unifying ideology: we are the modern heirs of the Indus Valley Civilization.
I quite understand that but G.M.Syed turned against the state in the end and that's what matters. Just like Akbar Bugti was not always a rebel but turned into a rebel later on. If things don't go your way then it doesn't mean that you should turn against the state.As for Bacha Khan, i have sympathy for him. He was wrongly accused. Unfortunately his closeness to Indian Congress and his initial opposition to Pakistan and Quaid went against him. His case was thoroughly mishandled.
I don't like many things in Pakistan but that doesn't mean that i will work against it and will start a rebellion. Don't justify a traitor.
I am for a secular state as well but the problem is that we can't go against the wishes of majority. By proper planning, we could work for the rights and protection of people under an Islamic state as well.