ravishingravi Posted July 27, 2011 Author Posted July 27, 2011 I dont think it is just Jinnah or Alama Iqbal who had a change of heart. I think Congress was as actively seeking this partition. Sardar had deep rooted apprehensions of Muslim league. It is said that the plundering of Somnath temple and killings time and time again by Mughals had created a deep rooted apprehension in his mind. Others also were pretty much in favour of it.
phaedrus Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 Dude' date=' I just ask you to watch the Talk shows which are run in Pakistan from from 7 to 11 which are basically dictating public opinion. I am not saying all Pakistanis are this way, but it is a fact that Pakistan as a state is trying to distance itself from its cultural identity which is essentially from an Indian sub continent. This therefore requires certain degree of antagonism to be generated against India ( i.e Hindus )[/quote'] don't talk shows in Indian channels do the same thing? I wouldnt go by those to gauge public opinion tbh. have met and spent long periods of times with many pakistanis and after the initial awkwardness, things always boil down to the similarities, especially when you in an english speaking country. There are many india-hating pakistanis but not all.
phaedrus Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 These were from his idealistic days when he was a proponent of the one India theory. After that he spent a few years in the UK, and when he returned he had completely transformed. Proving the age old theory that the more time you spent in a Western country, the more likely you are to be retarded. :haha:
ravishingravi Posted July 27, 2011 Author Posted July 27, 2011 don't talk shows in Indian channels do the same thing? I wouldnt go by those to gauge public opinion tbh. have met and spent long periods of times with many pakistanis and after the initial awkwardness, things always boil down to the similarities, especially when you in an english speaking country. There are many india-hating pakistanis but not all. No they don't. They are positively bad and sensationalist, but serious news channels are not in the same league as theirs. As I said, I am not going to generalize every Pakistani everywhere, but the fundamentals are what they are.
phaedrus Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 No they don't. They are positively bad and sensationalist' date=' but [b']serious news channels are not in the same league as theirs. As I said, I am not going to generalize every Pakistani everywhere, but the fundamentals are what they are. fair enough, would have to check some of their channels out to be able to make a comparison. our aman ki asha channel among the 'serious' crew is no different though, i would imagine
phaedrus Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 but then again, if its that crap, why bother :idunno:
Lurker Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 These were from his idealistic days when he was a proponent of the one India theory. After that he spent a few years in the UK, and when he returned he had completely transformed. Proving the age old theory that the more time you spent in a Western country, the more likely you are to be retarded. I assume you made that comment tongue-in-cheek but there may be more than an element of truth there. Historically migration have tend to make humans more conservative in a foreign land. Syed Qutb comes to mind immediately whole philosphy underwent a huge turnaround with a complete anti-West philosphy while he was in US. Many modern day Islamic terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda included, tends to drive some of their reasoning from Qutb's philosphy. Among Indians it is also fairly evident. The vociferous, often communal, crowd tends to be comprised of NRI who suddenly develops a thing for his religion when he goes abroad. Without needing to generalize Gujaratis take a cake on this. Cheen o arab hamara, hindustan hamara Muslim hain hum, hai watan saara jahan hamara........ Duniya ke but kado mein, pehla woh ghar khuda ka hain uske pasbaan hum, woh pasbaan hamara Don't remember much more. But verse for verse, he tried to negate his more famous (and better written) Saare Jahan se achcha. The transformation was complete. :(( Sahir Ludhianvi made a good humorous rebuttal of Iqbal's work mentioned above in his song for Woh subah kabhi to aayegi. Cheen-or-arab hamara, hindostan hamara rahne ko ghar nahin hai saara jahan hamaraa. :--D:--D Years later we havent had a Sahir..and yes he is one of my perennial favorites.
Lurker Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 Extremely good point there Lurker. I have thought about this quite a few times and I can't come up with an answer. From what I have read about Iqbal although he pioneered a distinct state/region for muslims from Hindu India, I don't think he had much clarity about a sovereign country on its own. Secondly, I believe that he was one of those who was happy with continuing the Sub-continental islamic tradition mixed with sufism and had no intention of swinging towards the arabs. What I do believe happened were the following: A) Jinnah in the quest for political power took the idea of a distinct muslim region and converted into a distinct sovereign nation. B) Since Jinnah died very quickly after the establishment of a Pakistani nation, there was no one with any coherent ideas and in their general urge to differentiate themselves from the Indian identity they pushed towards the arabs and C) Lastly, General Zia-ul-haq, his role in the radicalisation of Pakistan cannot be stated enough. Fairly valid points there Gunner but Iqbal would be, pound for pound, one of the greatest intellect from Indian subcontinent standing very well alongside Tagore, Faiz etc. It is amazing to see an artists transform like that. Politicians I get it will do anything but intellactuals? That the quandry.
flamy Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 :hysterical: reminds me of that joke .... want death by rape or raped (till death) Jinnah and secular in the same sentence .... hehehe ... no wonder you were arguing with me on all sorts of things in that MF Hussain thread. :hmmm:
ganeshran Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Jinnah and secular in the same sentence .... hehehe ... no wonder you were arguing with me on all sorts of things in that MF Hussain thread. BB, Like I said on the MF Hussain thread, your interpretation of history is completely one dimensional. You change reality to suit your interpretation that all Muslims are evil and some sort of "broad level decisions" must be taken against them, the details of which you havent clarified so far. Jinnah before the 1930s was a secular politician and committed to the cause of a united India. It was only in the 30s that he began to change track after coming back from London. He neither wore his faith on his sleeve, nor did he invoke God in his earlier speeches. He started to get more and more extremist and radical in his speeches after the 1937 elections, and he actually told the Bombay Governor Lord Brabourne that he plans to preach communalism to Muslims in India. In his early political career there are many instances where Jinnah chose nationalism over religion, when Aga Khan lead a delegation of influential Muslim leaders to demand a separate Muslim electorate. Jinnah was the only one who opposed it vehemently. During the latter stages of his career, Jinnah merely chose faith as a means to achieving his political end, a decision which would lead to the birth of Pakistan, but for which the country pays a price till date.
CSK Fan Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Fairly valid points there Gunner but Iqbal would be' date=' pound for pound, one of the greatest intellect from Indian subcontinent standing very well alongside Tagore, Faiz etc. It is amazing to see an artists transform like that. Politicians I get it will do anything but intellactuals? That the quandry.[/quote'] You always have to seperate the artist from his art. Although artsists might be geniuses, they are still human beings with their fallacies. Some of the most famous artist were disgraceful human beings Just being an intellectual doesnt prevent you from being prejudiced or petty
achilles Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Very insightful and honest. About time, such people become a part of a non-partial, people's government. I can't seem to understand though- If utalk believes that the average Pakistani is not obsessed with India, I can't seem to figure out why the voting doesn't reflect that. Perhaps, there is more than meets the eye.
ganeshran Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 can you give me an example of when ' date=' where and how I changed any reality to suit my "agendas" ?[/quote'] Every incident of you extrapolating acts by a certain section of the populace to brand the entire Muslim community of 180 millions as evil. Your claim that every Kashmiri is responsible for the massacre of Kashmiri Pundits but every Gujrati or Delhiite is not responsible for 1984 or 2001. Now can you explain what are the "broad level decisions" that you want to be taken?
ganeshran Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 And I have repeatedly said that things like Kashmir cant be accomplished by a teeny-weeny set of bad apples . it needs participation at grass roots levels. So you are the one that is twisting reality here not me. I have explained the broad level decisions many times before. unless and untill you dont begin to recognize the root cause of this nonsense nothing will happen. There will be many more threads like the recent Mumbai Bombings and you will keep spamming in those threads never ever bothering to find out why someone went to that extent without even bothering to negotiate for whatever they want. Will respond later tonight gotta go. We discussed the Kashmir issue to death in the MF Hussain thread. My stand is simple on this - anyone who indulged in violence should be punished and anyone who didn't do anything is innocent. Simple as that. If you consider entire communities should be blamed for the acts of a section (no matter how large that section is), then we should take up the blame for any incidents of violence by Hindus as well. You never explained exactly what broad level decisions you seek - atleast not on the MF Hussain thread. I would like to know what these decisions are - especially in the context of your contradicting claims that Hindus-Muslims cannot live in peace with each other, and that Muslims were wrong to seek the partition of India.
ravishingravi Posted July 28, 2011 Author Posted July 28, 2011 Jinnah was opposed to muslim league in early 20th century. He infact protested against Gandhi for gaining support of muslims with "Khilafat" movement and using religion. He certainly wasn't a religious man by any stretch. Today, he would be classed with Taseer.
ganeshran Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 And how exactly are you going to figure out who where the culprits in the Kashmir scenario ? The population of Kashmir was a few millions and it has been 20 yrs since ... So now whats your Plan of Action as per the rules and regulations listed in the Handbook of 'secularism' ? Anybody with an iota of common sense will tell you that if you are a Hindu you are by-and-large not welcome over there. And you are saying that we need to go find ONLY those morons that were responsible for such a situation ? Does it not occur to you that the vast majority kinda like this un-official status ? This is simply stupid. What you are saying is - Its difficult to find the perpetrators so lets go and punish all of them and hold them guilty. Thankfully the law does not work based on collective guilt and should not either. That is why courts are there. There needs to be a concerted effort to find the guilty and make sure they are punished. This has not happened there and I would criticise the law and order machinery's failure. But that does not mean every Kashmiri can be punished just because we are not able to find the guilty ones. And it is quite simply retarded to compare 1984 with Kashmir ... simple reason being no Muslim worth his salt has ever done anything officially to go after the perpetrators of the carnage of 1989/90. Whereas the opposite has happened in the 1984 and 2002 riots. The law and order machinery -which is run by Hindus - has gone to extreeme extents in those cases ( remember the committee setup by Shriman Lallu Parsad Yadavji 2yrs after the incident simply because he was a Rail Mantri and the Godhra carnage happened on Railway Property ?) The scumbags even arrived at the conclusion that it was an accident and not a criminal case. The day any hardline group that controls Kashmir does anything even remotely similar we can talk.Also please remember that nobody is blaming the entire Sikh community for the various acts committed by the hardliners in the early 80s. If and when Hindus are successful in enacting a equivalent of Kashmir and 1947 we can talk likewise. Another instance where you try to change reality to suit your interpretation. The law and order machinery has been totally apathetic in 1984 and 2001 as well. The main accused roam free and the lower level operatives are jailed with courts just delaying justice over and over again. Commitees are formed and disbanded. Jagdish Tytler still is free. Sajjan Kumar was arrested only last year. In Gujrat's case, the spotlight has turned more to political point scoring than to find justice the broad level decisions I seek are explained in this link : http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/ in other words : unless and untill you refuse to acknowledge that this ideology is a totalitarian and utterly intolerant towards those who don't subscribe to its principles ... the rest will continue to suffer. This is a world wide phenomena supported by hard facts and empirical data. It is easy to shout me down on a MB using the usual Politically Correct BS but that is ALL you can do. You have ZERO evidence to suggest that this ideology belongs in the holy space that religion is supposed to occupy. Feel free to tell me why I need to tolerate anyone that subscribes to teachings as noted in post#31 and in B4 you try to produce Religion X with similar track-record and claim exemptions. Stick to what is causing the most destruction. You are evading the question and again parroting your usual "empirical data and hard facts" points. But will refuse to acknowledge the violence done by Christians in the middle ages as somehow that is not proof of their 'violent ideology' and Christians today are absolved of the guilt of their forefathers but Muslims arent. the link you posted is a criticism of Quran and not much different from what you post again and again on ICF. I asked in concise points what broad level decisions you seek against Muslims of India. surely that might not be so difficult to post
Recommended Posts