Jinnah and the religious right « PKPolitics Discuss

PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Jinnah and the religious right

(24 posts)

yahya
Member

http://tribune.com.pk/story/104683/jinnah-and-the-religious-right/

Any body wanna bet how soon this thread will disappear?

Posted 1 year ago on 16 Jan 2011 17:57 #
naseemkhanan
Member

“We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”
Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi
October 11, 1947

Posted 1 year ago on 16 Jan 2011 18:27 #
naseemkhanan
Member

“You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.”
Address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi
February 21, 1948

Posted 1 year ago on 16 Jan 2011 18:29 #
semirza
Moderator

Who ever and what ever Jinnah might have been in his political life and personal life but he was undisputedly leader of Muslim league not a Secular league! Why this point is not considered?

This topic has been discussed more often then others but still remains a favourite.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 10:56 #
Rizwan Qaimkhani
Member

Jinnah was the frontman of British Empire's initiative to divide and rule. He furthered those ideologies by dividing India into two. He was planted into Muslim League when British found the division was inevitable. To favor their cause of divide and conquer, they needed someone working inside. As a whole sub-continent muslims, we lost Jonagrah and subsequently Hyderabad Deccan and we inherited Kashmir, a bone of contention. Jinnah met his fate like his brethren Mir Jaffar and Mir Sadiq. As part of the deal, he never endured hardships as fellow muslims had and just slow poisoned to meet his ultimate fate.

By dividing Muslim India into parts, British have achieved indefinite disguised slavery of the nations in the Indian sub-continent. After more than 60 years, what have we changed: nothing. We are still living with the same outdated British penal code and the very same railway line they laid on etc. It is a false sense of pride and freedom. At least before we were slaves to British, now we are slaves to invisible hands who engulfing majority of the budget in the name of defence and public services on both sides of the border (90% percent budget is allocated for these two monsters in Pakistan and India has similar number) where citizens are uneducated, unhealthy and they are still slaves to the British slavery class system, aristocracy, military and jagirdars. What has changed after the division, I would say 'unfortunately nothing'.

As far as Pakistan's initial funding, it came from Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad not some Qadyanis or Parsis, it is a fact. Even one may find Osman's wealth treasured in and backing Pakistani Rupee in State Bank of Pakistan; a gift in the shape of Gold Bricks.
As those who belittle efforts of Aligarh school of thought, there were only two best schools for muslims; Aligarh and Osmania University. They provided Pakistan a solid footing at its inception.

It was just a process of changing hands—Independence.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 13:01 #
gv
Member

@rizvan qaimkhani

your history is completely distorted adn a bit fantasist to boot.

The entire senior leadership of the AIML was made up of 'secular democrats'. Jinnah inlcluded

They viewed the muslims of india as a separate nation and therefore sought to carve out a nation state for them.

India was unique in the post colonial carve up of the world due to its size and vast mix of cultures, religions and languages..

Instead of going with the global trend at the time - which was a demarcation of states based on ethnic grouping.. Indian politicians ended up going down the relgious/sectarian route and positon hindus against muslims.. claiming that these two different religious groups were separate 'nations' with distinct cultures..

this is despite the fact that there is more in common between punjabi hindus and muslims than between punjabi muslims and tamil muslims and vice versa..

But PLY continue to distort history in order to fit their own little warped world views... guess where we would be in an united india right now my friend.. we would be scum... treated just like the hindus and christians of pakistan are treated today..

I however concede that you are right in your final statement.. power just changed hands after independence.. the status quo remained the same for the poor man.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 13:52 #
Rizwan Qaimkhani
Member

@gv
I do not disagree with you on our place in United India, it is just the division was a bit unfortunate; we got short hand of the stick. It was well-cencieved to let Kashmir in the state that become headache for both nations. Only few benefitted from the Kashmir and still they are and will always be till it resolved that I am sure never going to happen. I feel there is a definite conspiracy between top leaderships of Pakistan, India and Britain, the triangle forces us to spend a large budget on defence never concentrate on the basic humanatarian issues such as provision of food, education and health facilities. It is unfortunate but it is well-conceived state of affair.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 14:06 #
shirazi
Member

@gv

"The entire senior leadership of the AIML was made up of 'secular democrats'. Jinnah included. They viewed the muslims of india as a separate nation and therefore sought to carve out a nation state for them. '

Could you please elaborate how the two above statements are not self contradictory. How secular democrats and carving a nation in the name of religion go hand in hand?

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 14:38 #
toamin
member

i think that 'secular creed' does recognize different religions as different entities, it just ensures to keep them off the ground and locked inside 'holy grounds'

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 14:56 #
shirazi
Member

@RQ

"Jinnah was the frontman of British Empire's initiative to divide and rule. He furthered those ideologies by dividing India into two. He was planted into Muslim League when British found the division was inevitable."

I couldn't agree more with you. I am glad someone else here treat him as Politician and not a Prophet. Jinnah was very accomplished and clean Politician but that doesn't mean he had a clean slate. He was very secular ( might had issues reciting soorah ikhlas like Rehman Malik -: )) but used religion for his political ambitions like ZAB.

I 'd like someone to explain If he was thinking about Muslims of India, supposedly his constituents and not his self political interest what did they think about Muslims in India who were living in minority all over the India. Having a separate state for Muslims where they are in majority where their numbers were enough to assure local and state government anyway wasn't a big deal. The sheer slogan of separate Muslim homeland made things worse for Muslims living as minority all over.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 15:34 #
shirazi
Member

@Salam
Of course Secular creed recognize religion they just don't do politics on the basis of religion, if they do they are deviating from secular principles as both Jinnah and ZAB did on key occasions.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 15:52 #
gv
Member

@shirazi

its very simple. the AIML was essentially petrified (probably rightly so) of the status of a muslim minority in a united india from an socio-economic point of view.

The leadership itself leant towards a secular democratic governing model. They just didnt want to be governed by a hindu majority.

So first they tried going down what would now be called 'affirmative action' in the states via the protected 'separate electorate' route..

When they realised that was not enough they tried for a confederation of states vis a vis the cabinet mission plan in '46.

However when that was shot down by gandhi and the congress they were forced to accept a separate nation state(s) within the muslim majority areas of united india.

They had no inention of creating an 'islamic' state but were protecting the muslims of india by creating a 'muslim majority ' state - and if you cant differentiate between the two theres no point in having this argument.

@salam will help me out here im certain we've agreed on this point befoer.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 17:16 #
gujjartalwar
Member

Granted that Jinnah was secular Muslim but his triumph against Muslim religious leadership and other tremendous odds was because of his fortitude, dedication and impeccable political career. Those who argue that because Jinnah was secular, only the seculars have the right to Govern in Pakistan are plain mistaken. Nobody has an inherent right to anything, you have to earn it.

Today's seculars--Zardari, Gilani, Altaf, Asfandyar and their cornies are hopelessly spineless and selfish and stand for nothing. Selfish and cowards can become rich but they are never respected or looked upto in any society.

Our religious right may be noisy and crude but their role in running state affairs has been marginal at best in 63 years of Pakistan's existence. We have been brought to our knees by the incompetence of secular rulers. If seculars have any guts, they should accept their incompetence and learn something from Jinnah's life to turn themselves around or the circumstances will drive us into subjugation to religious zealots.

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 18:34 #
Faarigh Jazbati
member

This is what I wrote 2 years ago and still have the same view point.

Slaam Everyone

I dont understand why people in Pakistan are stuck what Jinnah said or what he wanted Pakistan to be. If you say that Jinnah was a true democrat then under democratic principle if people of Pakistan decided to be a theocratic or secular or nationalistic or fascist state then so be it. What Jinnah said becomes less relevant as under democratic principle it is people who decide what type of government or state they want to be.

On a different note for Muslims it is not what Jinnah said or not said IT IS WHAT Allah and His messenger SAW SAID. It is what type of government system or state system we are commanded by Allah and His messenger SAW.

FJ

Posted 1 year ago on 17 Jan 2011 18:40 #
toamin
member

jinnah was just a british loyal agent and did his job per the whims & desires of his mashterni -queen jee- he never struggled against the oppressive raj, in fact he always stood with them and opposed muslim leaders who resisted raj, he hated those who disobeyed british and never took their cases as lawyer.. (sorry for being harsh to those who fantasize jinnah as some holly figure)

after executing british plan he supported british colonial establishment & inherited colonial raj institutes, after british gave him Governor General post, he opted to live by british colonial rules, what he said is not important, what he did is important :)

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 4:57 #
sasherwani
Members

@ salam,

Now I know why you and the mulla league want to destroy Pakistan :)

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 7:55 #
ajhons
Member

@Salam
whatever you said I wonder still JI supported Fatimah Jinnah in elections.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 8:02 #
toamin
member

@ajhons

by your above statement it seems that you are thinking if i am a jamaat-e-islami supporter, you are wrong if you think that-

my views on jamaat's history & methodology already exist on this forum, if interested you may look them up

jinnah was british man (aka agent) and he executed british plan -a simple fact :)

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 8:15 #
ajhons
Member

Salam sorry for my incorrect idea of individuality.Infact I took it as you are more into religious frame of reference when you call Jinnah a British Agent.I always read you with great respect.Just got a notion from above post only.

I think the word Agent is quite iniquitous.History itself is so controversal that you can not be specific on any issue.

But I do respect your opinion

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 8:32 #
choosy
Member

Jinnah ko na extremely conservative Pakistan chahiya tha.
na unko extremely liberal Pakistan chahiye tha .

he was a balanced person .
and here nobody can disagree with me .
right?

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 9:03 #
ajhons
Member

Choosy Bhai
Fully agree
you know, even there are people who will not be agreed on this too.lol

Some people really like to differ everything, anything.

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 9:18 #
choosy
Member

@ajhons bhai ,
sahi kaha aap ne bilkul ...
larnay walo ko larnay ka bahana chahiye .
he he he

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 9:38 #
ajhons
Member

Jesay PML(N) aur PPP
ya MQM aur ANP

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 9:46 #
choosy
Member

he he he
sahi kaha .
larnay waly Quaid e Azam jiase undisputed leader ko bhi controversail bana daltay hain .

Posted 1 year ago on 18 Jan 2011 9:52 #