What's new

Wish we could have been a Federation as originally envisioned by Jinnah

Few posters here are claiming that they lost few relatives in partition but always remember bloodshed was on both sides of the border that too of enormous proportions where millions of hindus and muslims were killed. It was never one sided, it was painful.

I would say our leaders, the congress leaders and muslim league leaders failed us in protecting millions of lives before and after partition.

But as they say we should always look forward, so we should try to forget animosity and make stronger organisations like SAARC and live peacefully.
 
I want Jinnahs Pak... the federation of Kashmir,Whole of bengal (including calcutta and assam) Junagarh,mavadar,hyderabad,sindh,Gilgit baltistan,punjab(including muslim cities and towns like gurdaspur etc),KPK and baluchistan (includin Sistan)...

Jinnah's Pakistan was more than collection of pieces of land & muslim dominated areas, it had many values & jewels of humanity, it was secular, democratic,mordern,peaceful,educated nation.
Irony is everyone has forgotten Philosophy of Pakistan Creation but demand for Geography of Pakistan prevails strongly.

Half of my family is shia...half sunni... we have a shia president... a sunni PM... we had several shia Presidents and PMs... like Zulfiqar ali bhutti,Benzair bhutto,Musharaf,Zardari etc...

Unlike you we dont kill people for being low caste or muslims... sunshine... wake up.

sure?

so people killed in Karachi in secterian violence, buses burnt after identification of passengers whether they are shias or sunnis, killing of hazaras in balochistan, 23 shias killed in G-B in last month are all BOLLYWOOD SHOOTS & DRAMA we see on BBC, CNN???
 
Why don't you be a doll, back up your argument and point out some of "those" things that were denied to Muslims(with evidence off course)!!

Too long story approximately 50 pages of explanation.
 
No american, mullah, nor arab dictates me.

But they do dictate your country of origin. If today you look at Pakistan's condition and it's worth in the global world, then it's beyond pathetic to even discuss it. United we stand, divided we fall. And the bs about Hindus enslaving Muslims is baseless. You can't enslave a huge chunk of your population so easily. Although I do agree that a "United India" would have to be broken one day or another. It would be better if the Subcontinent was divided on the basis of ethnic groups or regions and not religion.
 
Are you really against partition?

Well bro i am a big supporter of it.

If we were united today our condition would be miserable today.

Keep in mind in india muslims are the most poor people.





Bro, Muslims are weak in India because they are less than 15% of Indian Population.

Do you honestly believe Muslims would have been weak in India as 40% of the Population ?

Jinnah did not want to cut the ties with India completely.

Till the last minute he was confident Pakistan India would be a Federation.

Case in point, Jinnah never sold his Property in Bombay.

Infact, he purchased land in Shimla one month before the partition. If he believed he would never come back, why would he have purchased land in Shimla in July of 1947.

Remember, both Muslim League and Indian Congress party had initially agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan and Pakistan India were to be a Federation till Nehru pulled out at the last minute.
 
Time to close the thread.



Why, because it makes you feel Uncomfortable, MR. OPINIONATOR ?

We have to confront these demons of our past history to fully understand as to what happened in the past.

Nations that sweep their history " under the rug " are condemned to repeating same mistakes over and over again.

I don't understand the emotional outburst here.

For those who claim to have lost relatives in partition, Let me tell you my uncles died defending their families in Dehli during Partition. We lost our homes and lands and my parents/grandparents arrived with just the clothes on their backs.

So please spare me the sob stories.

Most Pakistanis went to sleep on the night of August 14, 1947 and woke up next morning to find Pakistan was created.

My family sacrificed life and property , so I am in no mood to hear lectures about sacrifices.

I was born in Pakistan soon after Partition. I love Pakistan and would give my life and all my resources for Pakistan.

But that does not mean I want to be brain dead and not realistically analyze the history of my country. No , I want to understand and know the truth about what happened without the encumbrance of "Sugar coated" propaganda.

Pakistan Zindabad Paindabad.
 
1. Provisions of the CMP are not taught in schools, would not find school text books(Hindi or Urdu)..most of the information is only available on web sites, like the one you copy-pasted your information from.
Main Provisions of the Cabinet Mission Plan

2. First and fore most flaw in the plan(incidentally information that is not mentioned in the article you pasted) was "Separate electorates for Muslims"
ie. Muslim voters will only vote for Muslim candidates.
Now do tell, why would some one opt for such an obvious idiocracy...where a voter is forced to choose his representative based on his religion.

3.Second flaw in the plan, was dissolution of power..instead of having..one strong center ..you create multiple power centers..resulting in pure chaos in the country..few years later each state power center asking for autonomy..more resources and finally independence.


And do tell why should Muslims be give preferential treatment and not Sikhs and Christians?? Why should rules of democracy be bent to appease Muslims?


Finally also do tell..if CMP was such an "ideal Utopia" ..why didn't the newly independent state of Pakistan implement its provisions in its own country??

You guys are only good for demanding more rights, more power when you are minority and not giving them, when you are in Majority?..Why weren't separate electorates created for Pakistani minorities?

Why wasn't there dissolution of power b/w East and West Pakistan..why was there a single power center(West Pakistan) in your country after Independence?

Sir Salute you for the brilliant post.

for me, my simple mind tells me.

everyone should forger about religion. SIMPLE.

State function should be irreligious.

Personal life is your choice.

So no favours to anyone from the STATE which is irreligious in function - that is democracy.

if muslims demanding anything based on religion, then the very idea of democracy means every religion should get it. WHY ONLY MUSLIMS? why not Sikhs why not hindus why not christians why not atheists why not jains why not buddhists should have separate electorates?

My simple mind tells me in democracy there is no place for any religious benefits being conferred on any particular religion by the STATE Legislature.

So rejecting of the plan was right by Nehru. I hate even the idea of muslim reservation in jobs which some parties wanted to give in India. I just hate any religion based rule.

I say to these ministers Give 3 times more reservation to the economically backward then u r giving to muslims, but dont divide my country on reliious lines.

Also in democracy there is no place for ISLAMIC rule or Shariah as Pakistan has today. Nor would such demands have been acceptable in India as arer not today if there was no division. Now it is difficult to say how many Pakistanis today would or could imagine to live in a country where there is no FAVOURITISM to muslims and where all religions are equal and a country which is non RELIGIOUS in its affairs and where there is no Islamic rule and no Shariah rules.

Democracy has no place to favour even 99% majority nor .01% minority population. When democracy looks down on us immortals it sees only human flesh and blood, so all same and no other difference.

So I am against any rule in favour of particular religion, and I find the demand that give SUCH UNDEMOCRATIC rights like separate electorate and reservation to muslims and others like that as a blackmail to Nehru to prevent division of India. But Nehru did right by sticking to the PRINCIPLES of DEMOCRACY.

It is like a true police officer would loose his job rather then to accept order from his senior to not imprison a criminal who is close to his boss. Well done Nehru in not accepting any biased rules and upholding the rights of equality for one and all in India.

I hate anyone who says give this to someone coz of his religion in my country. i keep repeating and I will stand by it always.. STATE SHOULD BE IRRELIGIOUS IN DEMOCRACY..

state and religion should NEVER be mixed.

If Pakistanis want to and can live as any other ordinary citizen of hindustan with same rights as any other person, then there would have been no need for the request for division. There was no point in even thinking about it.

Sikhs are doing so well when they are not even 2% of Indian population. they dominate in almost any sphere of life. DOES ANYONE HERE THINK THAT SKIHS ARE NOT WELL OFF IN INDIA? Mind it they are not EVEN 2%.

So this is planely foolish that 40% muslims would be under the rule of Hindus. WRONG. In India not even a community which is just 2% of population is subjugated, simply because MOST IMPORTANTLY THERE IS NO DESIRE to do anything like this. Secondly the state doesnt allow to do this under the democratic constitution.
SO no way 40% of muslims would be discriminated. Firstly no desire, secondly 40% is too big, thirdly the State Constitution would not allow it.

Yes but at the same time Muslims would not have been given any favouritism. SO if they come around and say that there is no shariah rule and therefore it is discrimination against us by Hindus then it is not acceptable and obviously it has nothing to do with discrimination but their own desire to see the STATE HAVE A RELIGIOUS ROLE, which is something not acceptable in democracy and not accepting this is not discrimination.!!
 
Whatever happened was happened for good ,whatever happening is happening for good ,whatever happen will happen for good ..
Pakistan did well as a nation up to 3 decades after independence ..after those freedom fighter generation suddenly it became intellectually bankrupt .. It hardly produced any intellectuals ,and the force which can lead the nation was absent ..
 
The problem wasn't that there was a partition. Perhaps it was necessary; perhaps it wasn't. The problems arose in the haphazard way in which the Partition was carried out. On independence day, neither country knew of the Radcliffe award. If the Partition had occurred without bloodbath - things would have been much better. It is ridiculous that guys like Jinnah and Nehru were sitting in their air-conditioned rooms in Bombay and Delhi demanding their pound of flesh not really caring about the way the Partition happened. The biggest culprit in this was Mountbatten - the British Govt. had given him till July 1948 to "free" India - instead of doing it surgically by then - he did it like a butcher in 1947 itself.
 
the british were incredible cunning.

after completely dominating the subcontinent for centuries what people truly believe that the british all of a sudden decided to think "lets give up the sub continent old boy because power and wealth is no good for us anymore" - they simply repackaged and reconfigured the global order such that the new means for domination are not through naked imperialism but mega institutions like the UN etc....

they left an india that had the pashtuns, the kashmiri's and the punjabi's all divided, fighting and quarreling - a setup which meant that india's regional prowess could always be checked, it meant a less independent india, they knew what they were doing because they had been absorbed in india fr centuries and didn't suddnely decide to throw it away.
 
the british were incredible cunning.

after completely dominating the subcontinent for centuries what people truly believe that the british all of a sudden decided to think "lets give up the sub continent old boy because power and wealth is no good for us anymore" - they simply repackaged and reconfigured the global order such that the new means for domination are not through naked imperialism but mega institutions like the UN etc....

they left an india that had the pashtuns, the kashmiri's and the punjabi's all divided, fighting and quarreling - a setup which meant that india's regional prowess could always be checked, it meant a less independent india, they knew what they were doing because they had been absorbed in india fr centuries and didn't suddnely decide to throw it away.

Actually, they did not want to leave. Churchill was dead against it. But Churchill lost the election and Attlee came in. And even then there was only talk of dominion status. What convinced the British that they had lost India were two things -

1. Bombay Naval Mutiny - which quickly spread across India. Elements in Indian military refused to obey British officers - they flew flags of Congress and Muslim League from the ships after taking of Union Jacks

2. Red Fort Trials - To make an example of Bose's Indian National Army - A Hindu, a Muslim and a Sikh officer of the INA faced court martial proceedings in Delhi in the Red Fort. Their popularity was so high that Nehru and Jinnah both defended the INA officers and despite being convicted, the Brits had to release them.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom