Why gandhi supported kalifah movement and jinnah didnt?

[GOD OF WAR]

Shabir Ahmed Usmani was literary person an educationist so we all can understand his support for Pakistan unlike those fitna bharati deobandis

People and authors neutral to the concept of Pakistan and islam have also gone to the extent of calling Mr. Maududi's version of islam as 'PETRO-DOLLAR ISLAM' meaning that it was just an off shoot of some pseudo form of Islam funded by the Saudis by the dollars that they had accumalated by selling petrol to the west.

Secondly, Jinnah Sahab has catagorically used the words of 'Muslims' and 'Islam' in countless speeches. One of his very famous statements which is often repeated in our TV channels as well is "MUSALMAAN MUSIBATH MEY GHABRAYA NAHI KERTEY"

Secondly, Jinnah Sahab always wanted a Muslim state which is why he adhered to the two nation theory aswell, most points of this theory are based on religious diffrences. This was the genesis of the Pakistan movement.

Jinnah Sahab especially adopted the dress code that was affilated with the Muslims. i.e. a Sherwani and a Cap, known as the Jinnah Cap. This Cap does not directly symbolize the dress code of the muslims, (it was gifted by the Baloch to Jinnah Sahab, and he adopted it since he liked it a lot) however, Islamic dress code dictates that muslims must cover their heads. All these things denote that Jinnah Sahab was indeed aiming for a Muslim Sovereign State.

Why did Jinnah Sahab become the Governor General of Pakistan? he could have had elections or at the very least a refferendum or some kind of elections to choose a leader for the newly born Pakistan? I really dont think that Jinnah Sahab wanted a democratic state either! He was a proponent of the Khillah paragon of governance.

Allama Sahab's relation with jinnah Sahab became increasingly close in the last years. certainly Jinnah Sahab was aware of Allams's socio-political thought? Then why did he adhere to it?

To qoute Allama Sahab's two very famous peotry to supporting my PoV.
"Jambhooriat wo tarz-e-hakoomat hey ke jis mein, Bandon ko gina jata ha, tola nahin jata"

'Juda hon deen siyasat se, to reh jati hai Changaizi'


Israel and Pakistan are widely known as the only two ideological states.

 

[T-Faz]

People and authors neutral to the concept of Pakistan and islam have also gone to the extent of calling Mr. Maududi's version of islam as 'PETRO-DOLLAR ISLAM' meaning that it was just an off shoot of some pseudo form of Islam funded by the Saudis by the dollars that they had accumalated by selling petrol to the west.

Maulana Maududi's version was not related to the Wahabbi brand of Islam because Maulana heavily criticized the Sahabas in some of his literary work. These books are deemed too violent even for the Saudis and thus banned there. Though Maulana did receive support from the Saud's, especially after he was to be executed during his trial by Gen Azam Khan. The Saudi's called the GoP and got Maulana off the hook, starting a chain of a long term alliance.

Secondly, Jinnah Sahab has catagorically used the words of 'Muslims' and 'Islam' in countless speeches. One of his very famous statements which is often repeated in our TV channels as well is "MUSALMAAN MUSIBATH MEY GHABRAYA NAHI KERTEY"

His version of Islam espoused the real Islam. He equivocally stated that:

Democracy is in the blood of Musalmans, who look upon complete equality of manhood [mankind]…[and] believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.

Islam and its idealism have taught democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is their for anyone to fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everybody…..Let us make it (the future constitution of Pakistan), We shall make it and we shall show it to the world.

Secondly, Jinnah Sahab always wanted a Muslim state which is why he adhered to the two nation theory aswell, most points of this theory are based on religious diffrences. This was the genesis of the Pakistan movement.

Correct, he wanted a Muslim state, not an Islamic state.

Jinnah Sahab especially adopted the dress code that was affilated with the Muslims. i.e. a Sherwani and a Cap, known as the Jinnah Cap. This Cap does not directly symbolize the dress code of the muslims, (it was gifted by the Baloch to Jinnah Sahab, and he adopted it since he liked it a lot) however, Islamic dress code dictates that muslims must cover their heads. All these things denote that Jinnah Sahab was indeed aiming for a Muslim Sovereign State.

Dress code is according to the environment, like they say, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Why did Jinnah Sahab become the Governor General of Pakistan? he could have had elections or at the very least a refferendum or some kind of elections to choose a leader for the newly born Pakistan? I really dont think that Jinnah Sahab wanted a democratic state either! He was a proponent of the Khillah paragon of governance.

No, the constitution wasn't formed yet and Jinnah always wanted a democratic state:

But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it.” –

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission

A theocratic state is what an Islamic state ought to be, and it is of course run by priests with a divine mission.

Allama Sahab's relation with jinnah Sahab became increasingly close in the last years. certainly Jinnah Sahab was aware of Allams's socio-political thought? Then why did he adhere to it?

To qoute Allama Sahab's two very famous peotry to supporting my PoV.
"Jambhooriat wo tarz-e-hakoomat hey ke jis mein, Bandon ko gina jata ha, tola nahin jata"

'Juda hon deen siyasat se, to reh jati hai Changaizi'

Allama Iqbal and Jinnah only worked with each other in a professional capacity, they weren't the close chums as made out by some outside of their professional life.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Though the Motive behind the creation of Pakistan was solely Political but the struggle didn't picked up momentum and wasn't popular enough until the Religious Card was employed, It was only then when Muslims supported the cause of Muslim League in great numbers..Now people can say whatever contents there mind , but Religion was used,employed and was a major driving force behind the creation of Pakistan.
The Two Nation theory did stated also, Muslims Eat the Beef(Cow's Meat) and Hindus Worship Cow, How can they live together.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

It was sort of offensive to Hindus since it went something like

Pakistan ka matlab kya, la illaha ilallah
Hindustan ka matlab kya, bhar main jaye humko kya

I seriously doubt any major leader of the Pakistan movement would ever put their support to such a slogan.

It wasn't widespread until 3 decades after Pakistan was created - thats telling something.

Whatever you may call it and some may have used it in a manner offensive to hindus also , The slogan overall beard religious sentiments which attracted many people towards Muslim League after when they lost 1937 Election,.Even though the Muslim League was largely comprised of Libral and Secular Leaders , but they did lost the election in 1937 as the population Largely beared the Religious Sentiments which were later exploited by Muslim league through the slogan of Pakistan ka Matlab Kia La ilaha ilallah.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Closer to the point of view explicated in PTH:

Jinnah’s grand nephew explains what Jinnah’s Pakistan is about

Posted: 21 Jan 2011 02:49 AM PST

From Dawn:

KARACHI, Jan 20: A grandnephew of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah called on Thursday for rebuilding Pakistan as a “democratic state”, where there was supremacy of the constitution, independence of the judiciary, protection of the minorities and non-involvement of religion in state affairs, as was envisioned by the Quaid.

Liaquat A. Merchant, a senior lawyer and president of the Jinnah Society, was delivering a lecture titled “Is Jinnah relevant in Pakistan today?” at the Aga Khan University auditorium.

He said we have drifted away from the vision of the Quaid-i-Azam and the people were asking for “Jinnah`s Pakistan” as the country has moved closer to a shortlist of failed states.

He said this country was created with the power of pen, power of speech and power of vote. It had been ruled for almost half of its existence by the power of the sword by dictatorial regimes which abrogated the constitution, put it in abeyance and mutilated it by constitutional deviations and supra-constitutional measures while politicians aided and abetted them.

Mr Merchant said it was not uncommon for the courts of law to uphold these regimes under the doctrine of necessity and welfare of the people.

He said we fought three wars with India and lost half of the country when we should have put our legal, political and diplomatic skills to work to solve our disputes and political bickering, intrigues and machinations.

“We disregarded the principles of equality and tolerance and failed to achieve unity in diversity and discipline in our ranks,” he said. “We may have achieved a measure of political independence but economic independence still remains a much desired necessity in Pakistan.”

He said Pakistan was not achieved by strikes and satyagrah , not by mischievous machinations; not by revolt and rebellion. “It was achieved by an awakening of the Muslims by Jinnah that this nation came into being,” he said. The struggle for Pakistan, he added, was at all times legal and constitutional. The power of pen proved to be stronger than the sword`s. The freedom of expression, he said, resulted in dissemination of news and Muslims received the benefit of educated Muslim opinion on matters of great importance. They used their pen and power to vote and supported Jinnah and the Muslim League.

A nation born so, he emphasised, had democracy ingrained in its creation and therefore ingrained in the minds and hearts of the citizens.

“If our leaders and governments had placed emphasis on education and literacy, democratic traditions would have taken hold in a much stronger way,” he said. “When people have a feeling of despondency and despair, it is not because democracy has failed but because their leaders have failed them and not allowed true democracy to flourish in Pakistan.”

Mr Merchant said: “We need to have our political leaders recognise the fact that they are elected representatives and not rulers. The government has to be controlled by public opinion based upon the freedom of speech and expression and reflected in the media.

“Opposition parties must play a constructive role and not merely oppose to frustrate policies of the government.”

`Gandhi wanted to visit Pakistan`

He cited extensively from historical documents on Jinnah`s views and said that Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Gandhi, said that Mahatma Gandhi had agreed to visit Pakistan in early 1948 but was assassinated before he could do so. Perhaps if Gandhi had undertaken this visit, the disputes and differences between India and Pakistan would have been resolved, he said.

Through his speech and visual presentation, Mr Merchant reminded the audience of the Quaid-i-Azam`s strong belief in democracy and a representative government, his confidence in the supremacy of the rule of law, his faith in the freedom of speech and the protection of human rights. Though it was a misfortune to lose Jinnah merely one year after the creation of Pakistan, he is the figure around whom “Pakistanis can rally to achieve national unity and progress in the modern world”.

Mr Merchant reminded the audience that if this country was to be “Jinnah`s Pakistan”, there was a need to revisit and recover the Quaid`s vision for this nation.

The talk was followed by a lively a question-answer session.

I never contradicted Jinah's Vision, But his Struggle of Pakistan become Reality largely because of two Sole Reasons
1. Muslims were Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life
2. Religious views were exploited to strenthen the Notion that Hindus and Muslims can never live Together as both have varying degrees of Faith and Religious Practices.

Haven't it Been for Religion Partition wouldn't have occurred.

 

[IND151]

mahatma Gandhi supported khilaphat movement to keep Muslims and Hindus united. he didn't realized or neglected that khilaphat movement was against his dream of united India.

The Caliphate is an Islamic system of governance in which the state rules under Islamic law. Caliph literally means "successor" or "representative" and emphasizes religious authority for the head of state.

The non-cooperation campaign was at first successful. Massive protests, strikes and acts of civil disobedience spread across India. Hindus and Muslims collectively offered resistance, which was largely peaceful. Gandhi, the Ali brothers and others were imprisoned by the British. However, the Congress-Khilafat alliance began withering soon. The Khilafat campaign had been opposed by other political parties such as the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha. Many Hindu religious and political leaders identified the Khilafat cause as Islamic fundamentalism based on a pan-Islamic agenda.

[edit]

The Khilafat struggle evokes controversy and strong opinions. It is regarded as a political agitation based on a pan-Islamic, fundamentalist platform and being largely indifferent to the cause of Indian independence. Critics of the Khilafat see its alliance with the Congress as a marriage of convenience. Proponents of the Khilafat see it as a major milestone in improving Hindu-Muslim relations, while advocates of Pakistan and Muslim separatism see it as a major step towards establishing the separate Muslim state. The Ali brothers are regarded as founding-fathers of Pakistan, while Azad, Dr. Ansari and Hakim Ajmal Khan are widely celebrated as national heroes in India.

Khilafat Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

mahatma Gandhi supported khilaphat movement to keep Muslims and Hindu united. he didn't realized or neglected that khilaphat movement was against his dream of united India.

How could he make such a mistake, How couldn't he realized this fundamental aspect ...

 

[LaBong]

I never contradicted Jinah's Vision, But his Struggle of Pakistan become Reality largely because of two Sole Reasons
1. Muslims were Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life
2. Religious views were exploited to strenthen the Notion that Hindus and Muslims can never live Together as both have varying degrees of Faith and Religious Practices.

Haven't it Been for Religion Partition wouldn't have occurred.

But it doesn't explain the fact that even a single South Indian Muslim didn't choose to go Pakistan.

 

[GOD OF WAR]

Maulana Maududi's version was not related to the Wahabbi brand of Islam because Maulana heavily criticized the Sahabas in some of his literary work. These books are deemed too violent even for the Saudis and thus banned there. Though Maulana did receive support from the Saud's, especially after he was to be executed during his trial by Gen Azam Khan. The Saudi's called the GoP and got Maulana off the hook, starting a chain of a long term alliance.

Deobandism is just a milder version of Wahabisim. Even Wahabism utter disrespectful statements to some of the Sahaba karaam RA naoozobillah. The fact that Modudi's hide was saved by the Saudis is testament that Deobandis are the ideological twins of the Wahabis.

His version of Islam espoused the real Islam. He equivocally stated that:
beg to differ on this, to each his own i guess








Correct, he wanted a Muslim state, not an Islamic state.
Please explain both, to me, this is just sematics. Islamic State is tantamount to Muslim State.




Dress code is according to the environment, like they say, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

While i agree to ur PoV, then there WAS a DISTICNT reason why Jinnah Sahab adopted to the muslim dress code! before that he was often seen sporting the most fashionable western tailored suits. It just show that Qaid was increasingly in favor of Pakistan as being an ideological Islamic State.

No, the constitution wasn't formed yet and Jinnah always wanted a democratic state:

the word of the Quaid would be equal to the constitution, even if we didnt have a written one. He still didnt go for any other electoral process. Indeed there is democracy in Islam, but it is very different than that of the democracy advertised so vehemently by the west. Islam also advocates a system of parliament, but not based on members whose vote have been cast by a buch of illiterate people under duress.






Allama Iqbal and Jinnah only worked with each other in a professional capacity, they weren't the close chums as made out by some outside of their professional life.

Even if Allama Sahab and Jinnah Sahab's relation were purely professional, they did join hands on a common cause did'nt they? Even in professional relations, a high level of mutual understanding is required, otherwise, even a professional relation becomes very fragile. Their relationship was very plutonic, which is why they worked for a common goal, with common thought processes.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

But it doesn't explain the fact that even a single South Indian Muslim didn't choose to go Pakistan.

thats a question to ponder, do u have any answers,theory which you might wana share..!

 

[LaBong]

thats a question to ponder, do u have any answers,theory which you might wana share..!

Is there a possibility that it was primarily a political movement of Muslims of particular region and class and religion was roped in to gain access to mass?

 

[bichuraM]

gandhi is not a very big thing in 2011....he is a past.................

 

[Patriot]

Jinnah was not a extremist.He know that Pakistan could not be gained by Jahalat like our current Mullahs have who think they can conquer the world by using suicide bombers and taliban..Jinnah was intellectual person and he was a realist.By the way I do suggest that please change your company in UK (don't take it wrong way please) because I've noticed you are getting radicalized ever since you went there.Nothing is gonna happen to Islam bro.Relax.

 

[GOD OF WAR]

Is there a possibility that it was primarily a political movement of Muslims of particular region and class and religion was roped in to gain access to mass?

nope, thats not the case. The origins of the Pakistan movement can be found in Two Nation Theory, in which a major portion prescribes the gulf between Hinduism and Islam. Two religions have been compared as early as the two nation theory, so what you are trying to insinuate is not valid.

Secondly when u say that 'Muslims of a particular region and class' strated out the Pakistan movement, its not possible to define such a demographical conotation as people from all walks of life were parcel of the Pakistan movement. Educated, uneducated, businessmen, lawyers, religious clerics, farmers, landlords, soldiers etc. My grandfather was a worker of ML and he was a small time land lord. So the notion that Pakistan was brought into being due to the result of a series of drawing discussions between the elite while sharing cognac is not a realistic way of looking at it. (btw have u been reading Waiting for Allah and Breaking the Curfew? )

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Rig Vedic

It was such a relief to read your latest conspiracy theory about the partition of British India; for a few difficult moments earlier, the chasm of agreeing with your views had loomed in front. I am glad that you are back to normal, expressing views that I am glad to attack wholeheartedly.

It is difficult to understand why you should set the sensational History for Dummies theories of an untrained amateur trying to make money from his presentation of hair-raising theories conjured out of thin air against the evident state of the world and of Britain in those days. There is nothing to justify such an analysis. Sarila's status as ADC is wholly unimportant. There are enough military men on board this forum who will inform you in excruciating detail about the nature of duties carried out by an ADC and about the profile of person picked for such duties. These are not the brains of the service, whichever service is involved; these are the socially acceptable, typically upper-class, at least presentable young men who can be counted upon not to trip over the tea tray, spill a drink down a guest's gown or be sick after excessive potations. Ideally, they should be the supporting arm under a guest thus afflicted.

History writing? Not really.

Looking at Sarila's theory presents a very sad picture. While it is a matter of some happiness that it gave a few hours of occupation and absorbed reading attention to somebody at any rate (I personally found it sickening in its contrived sense of the sinister elements of history, a foreign service version of What The Butler Saw), there is absolutely no reason to ascribe any more seriousness or heft to it than there is to put a value to the hypertensive burblings of an Arnab Goswami. In some senses, Arnab Goswami is at times more credible.

The British needed to "keep a bit of

India", in the words of Churchill.

And that is a fitting foundation for the whole conspiracy, other than a couple of obtrusive facts.

In 1945, Winston Churchill's Conservative Party suffered a thumping defeat at the General Elections. They won some 250 against the Labour 400, giving Labour, and Clement Attlee , a majority of nearly 150 (these figures are approximate, from memory).

India, and Pakistan, got independence under Attlee, under a British administration with a wholly different character and temper than the preceding imperialist, racist administration of Churchill. It is surprising that this sweeping social revolution in Great Britain, the effects of which are still being played out, finds no recognition in all the conspiracy theories based on the old imperial Great Game and other such nonsense.

The result was Pakistan. The British support of Jinnah's leadership role was a reward for Jinnah's usefulness. This does not mean that Jinnah was not capable of being conceited socially.

No doubt it is soothing balm to a section of Indian opinion to think that Pakistan was born of a worthless leadership, lackeys of the British, and that Pakistan was due to a need of the British and the Americans to preserve a pristine corner of India for their own parlour, to continue to fight the expansion of Soviet Russia. This is totally unhistorical.

Leave aside the utter irresponsibility of an analysis that devalues the sense of minority deprivation that had gripped the educated Muslim sections of the sub-continent, a sense that was deepened by the utter failure of electoral reservations under the 1919 and the subsequent 1935 semi-constitutions that India was ruled under. These electoral reservations were supposed to ensure that the Muslims were not entirely swept away. The Muslims found that in practicality, these reservations had no effect whatsoever in the essential matters, an access to western education on regulated terms, and a consequent fair chance to make up for their lag in education and social progress. It was a quest for a solution to this problem, to preserve the interests of the Muslims, seen as a section for this purpose among others, that was the core of the AIML's efforts throughout the independence struggle. It is clearly not that the educated Muslim was against independence; he (and his wife) were against an independence in which they were to be perpetual on the back foot to the dominant community, which would use its first mover advantage in accessing British education to keep the upper hand. It was a real problem, reflected by the increasing sense of redundancy felt by the erstwhile ruling sections of the population, and the deprivation due to their well-known languages of administration and rule, Persian and to an extent Urdu, being rapidly replaced by English.

To reduce this quest to a question of payment for loyalty, and to reduce the leader who led this titanic struggle to a person of some social conceit betrays a blindness and complete thick-skinned indifference to minority aspirations which is behind much of the violence that is being played out in my country today. I shall leave aside the cheap dig at Jinnah for some other occasion.

As regards the formation of Pakistan, and the role played by the British and Jinnah, a good source is the book "The Shadow of the Great Game – The Untold Story of India’s Partition" by Narendra Singh Sarila, Carroll & Graft Publishers, New York, 2006. Here is a review that gives many interesting facts:

Keeping the review aside for a second, we have first the minority aspiration of the Muslim educated classes reduced to a payment for services rendered, no doubt by thwarting Gandhi's loyal and selfless struggle on behalf of the nation, and then we have the curious spectacle of the entire triumph wrapped in tragedy episode of the independence of India reduced to a boy-scout exercise played for the pleasure of some boy scouts in their khaki shorts who wanted to keep playing school-boyish games.

All that can be said to that is that even while it completely misunderstands and ignores the huge social change that Britain was going through, even though it completely misunderstands the stand taken by Churchill and Roosevelt with regard to Russia's role in the post-war world, a stand understood by the entire British establishment, and acted upon until its interruption and reversal by the brothers Dulles - how superfluous the terminal 's' is - we are at least finally enlightened about the origins of the fascist uniforms of sections of the political spectrum in modern India.

It is convenient to take up the details of what has been said about the book separately, if at all we are to spend much time on this nonsensical conspiracy theory with no foundation but an impecunious author's fertile imagination.