The other anniversary

Published: March 24, 2012

The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore [email protected]

Pakistan and Bangladesh played each other in the final of the Asia Cup at the Sher-e-Bangla stadium situated in Dhaka on March 22. Either the organisers of the tournament or divine planning has managed to deny us one of the most piercing historical ironies of recent times, mind you only by a day, though. I wonder how many of those who were to deliver speeches on March 23 thought about the matter while they prepared for them while simultaneously being enthralled by the thoroughly-absorbing encounter, especially the brilliant and valiant performance of the Bangladesh team. At the risk of sounding pedantic, the Lahore Resolution (later christened or perhaps more precisely Islamised as the Pakistan Resolution) was presented in Lahore by the Sher-e-Bangla, Fazlul Haq on March 23, laying out the foundational ideological principle of our existence, namely the two-nation theory. The “Pakistan” not mentioned in the resolution did in fact contain Bangladesh. It requires a certain type of constitution to banish these sorts of ironies and speak about the two-nation theory, Iqbal and fortress of Islam, and do it fiercely with a straight face in a rehearsed and uninterruptible manner, often pretending as it is the first time it is being said.

Conventions of civility usually demand that Bangladesh and fall of Dhaka etc. not be brought up, at least not in any detail while indulging in this yearly ritual of hyper-nationalism. The sentiment of evasion is indeed understandable since it would make the argument for the two-nation theory a lot less certain and the occasion would suddenly seem not as momentous or invigorating, certainly not as joyous. And you know who really wants to ruin a public holiday. Yet some of our leaders and ‘public intellectuals’ go for high stakes, and bring up Bangladesh to substantiate the two-nation theory and how it actually proves the theory etc. As a general rule, there is no arguing with this level of stupidity. However, it needs to be tackled not only to resist having any temptations of nostalgia but also because it is not only false, it is also cruel and insensitive. December 16 is a day which understandably the Pakistan state wants to pass quickly every year; genocides do not make for easy recollection even by the perpetrators. A national state-level apology to the sovereign people of Bangladesh for the crimes committed requires no intricate argument; it should be done since it is clearly the decent thing to do. An added benefit would be that it might provide us an opportunity to reflect upon the validity of the two-nation theory and if it has outlived its utility or not. The frontiers of the two-nation theory are being severely tested in Balochistan right now, basic physics might be of some assistance — things that do not bend are more likely to break etc.

The crashing of planes in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, was a tragedy in more ways than is sometimes immediately obvious. In the historical sense, the major casualty was Salvador Allende and his legacy. Salvador Allende’s elected socialist government in Chile was overthrown by Pinochet backed by the United States government, and Allende preferred death over surrender on September 11, 1973 and what followed was undiluted reign of terror and violence in Chile. Yet 9/11 will now universally signify the tragedy in New York, and the slightly apologetic prefix ‘other’ will be necessary when talking about the 9/11 of Allende’s unmatched courage and death. I bring this random cruelty of history up because another incredibly brave comrade of Salvador Allende, Bhagat Singh’s legacy faces a similar challenge in Pakistan. Bhagat Singh was executed on the 23rd of March, 1931, at what today is an unmarked location in Shah Jamal, Lahore. One would think that in the present times of anti-imperialist sentiment at an all-time high, someone in Pakistan would make recourse to our greatest fighter of imperialism, or at least take a moment to pay homage to him on his death anniversary. Those who glibly and without embarrassment use the word ‘Shaheed’ for religious fanatics might benefit from a study of Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s brief and glorious life and find out the elevated bar he sets. The reason for the reluctance to bring up Bhagat Singh is singular and obvious, he was not a Muslim, for removal of doubt he was an avowed Marxist-Leninist atheist.

However, the refusal to intentionally not acknowledge Bhagat Singh’s valour is also unintentionally a slight on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Mr Jinnah was at his finest when he was the only one who spoke in defence of Bhagat Singh’s prison hunger strike in the Central Legislative Assembly on September 12 and 14. It might be useful to produce some of Mr Jinnah’s words, “The man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by the soul and he believes in the justice of his cause; he is not an ordinary criminal who is guilty of cold-blooded, sordid, wicked crime… And the last words I wish to address the Government are, try and concentrate your mind on the root cause and the more you concentrate on the root cause, the less difficulties and inconveniences there will be for you to face, and thank Heaven that the money of the taxpayer will not be wasted in prosecuting men, nay citizens, who are fighting and struggling for the freedom of their country.”

In a country where almost nothing seems to be justified without finding an excerpt of Mr Jinnah or Iqbal, how many times have we heard these words reproduced, certainly not enough. The words are clearly incisive, yet what makes them exquisite is that they were spoken to the face of Imperial power in the defence of a true fighter. The moral clarity of Mr Jinnah has learning value for how to resist imperialism and oppression. The 23rd of March without any talk of Bangladesh and Bhagat Singh is just a holiday, I hope you caught up on lost sleep.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 25th, 2012.

Reader Comments (94)

  • dasmir
    Mar 24, 2012 - 11:24PM

    The much celebrated India Gate in Delhi has most of the name from Soldiers from Balochistan,NWFP and Punjab..
    What can you say about the depth of hatred and mindset that erects monuments in the name of Invaders of the country.Pakistan is then only country that denies its own freedom fighters and honours its invaders!

    Recommend

  • haroon khan
    Mar 24, 2012 - 11:39PM

    Why isn’t there a chapter in our history books about Bhagat singh’s contribution in the freedom struggle? why must he be sidelined because of this atheism.

    Recommend

  • sohaib
    Mar 25, 2012 - 12:01AM

    You go on to question two nation theory like many of your ‘intellectual’ peers. this theory was the basis of the biggest movement of the muslims of India to free themselves of the Imperial British. While you and your colleagues keep questioning and discrediting this tool of anti-imperialism on these pages, you ask us to give credit to one Bhagat Singh. Do you also know that there were a few freedom fighters in the muslims as well who need more credit, not less? Certainly Bhagat Singh has become a poster boy for many liberals in our country who disparage and find faults in our creation and existence, Fair enough he needs to be appreciated but why after we discredit ourselves of what we have achieved? Our failures, weaknesses and separation of East Pakistan does not disprove two nation theory.
    And please go read in some religious text to know what ‘shaheed’ is. A shahed cant be a non-believer. His sacrificing his life is a great honour for him and the nation but cant be called ‘shaheed’. In know by saying this, I have opened up the debate for the extremist liberals on these pages.

    Recommend

  • Mar 25, 2012 - 12:06AM

    I’m avowed Anti Communist and Anti Marxist and Avowed Anti Maoist,but I’ m a admirer of Sardar Bhagat Singh,Raj Guru and Sukdev,these 3 Shaeed were true sons of the soil,they gave up their life so that soul and country could live.They were self less,unadalterated nationalist and not counter feat Patriot.They were very young specially Sardar,it is hard to realize he was in early twenty.What a man!,We must salute him.He was son of Punjab and died in Lahore,now Pakistan.Long live his sacrifice and Memory.I remember him.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 25, 2012 - 12:38AM

    @Hariharmani
    sir what about peoples who died during 1857 india freedom war and its start it by call in Jama
    Masjid Dehli….Recommend

  • Salman Arshad
    Mar 25, 2012 - 12:53AM

    Thank You.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Mar 25, 2012 - 1:26AM

    @Ali Tanoli:
    My friend, you need to move out of the straw man approach of “Then what about…” when you can’t come up with a cogent argument; discuss each issue or point independently on its merits. It is always easy to justify one injustice with another but two wrongs never make a right. (As regards the 1857 uprising, all those unfortunate heroes are still respected in India without consideration to their religion). Hmm, pointless advice, I know.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 25, 2012 - 2:42AM

    @dasmir
    Invaders are now natives of land.

    Recommend

  • Deb
    Mar 25, 2012 - 2:53AM

    Any one interested can watch the movie ‘The legend of Bhagat Singh’ (2002) directed by Raj Kumar Santoshi.The lead role was played by Ajay Devagan and the music was composed by the incomparable A R Rahman for which he won several awards.

    Recommend

  • Singh
    Mar 25, 2012 - 3:40AM

    @Ali Tanoli,
    You need to read Indian history book to get better understanding of true history of Pre-1947 indian subcontinent. It is matter of fact that in Pakistan, it is censored & tweaked.

    Recommend

  • vasant Deshpande
    Mar 25, 2012 - 5:07AM

    The more I read Mr Saroop ji`s columns the more I come to salute him. One of the best minds in South Asia!!

    Recommend

  • unbeliever
    Mar 25, 2012 - 7:21AM

    @Ali Tanoli:
    long ago i learned to not respond to you,
    but this one is for general public of pakistan.
    the 1857 did not start with a call from a maulvi in jama masjid or a pundit from some temple, but was started by a devout brahmin who refused to touch a greased bullet.

    it was after this war that britishers learned to leave out brahmins as they could think for themselves Recommend

  • Lawangin
    Mar 25, 2012 - 9:19AM

    Tow nations theory is nothnig but the negation of centruried long scientific reasoning of human sociial development. Never ever in the mordren time of state building, any religious palyed the primary bond of putting their poeple to make them a separate nation. Modren states are built over the ingredient which are tested across the world. Pakistan is living a medivial ages, as per their army generals who are not prepared to wake up to the hard realities of time. By refusing to acknowledge that all pakistani heroes from “Sir” Syed to “Sir” Iqbal were the unrpented and faithfull loyals of Brtish Impreislists. They also deny that they killed more than million Bengalies for the crime of being true democtrates. Pashtoon, Baloch and Sindhi are now going through the last pahse of this agony and they are killed like bugs, cuase they pose threat to the only Islamic Atomic but begger country, they call Pakistan.Recommend

  • Hold your horses
    Mar 25, 2012 - 9:31AM

    @sohaib:

    “Our failures, weeknesses and separation of East Pakistan does not disprove two nation theory”

    What more would convince you that the two nation theory has been a failure – separation of Balochistan ??

    For India, two nation theory has been a blessing in disguise though…Just think of a basket case like Pakistan being a part of India. India would have then lived with the ignominy of Osama’s killing in India…

    Stop being a religious freak !!! stop linking Islam to every god damn thing in this world…you are doing a great disservice to Islam..

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Mar 25, 2012 - 10:11AM

    Sad to say but our heros are OBL and other Muslims even if they are a bad name to Muslims, Pakistan and Islam. We bcome delighted when anybody becomes Muslim even by name and not by the deeds. Freedom fighters like Jhansi Ki Rani, Sabhash Bose, and Bhagat Singh and the freedom fighter who called himself Ram Muhammad Sing are excluded from our history.. Their only crime was they were true freedom fighters but not Muslims.

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 25, 2012 - 11:11AM

    @sohaib:

    I can see no reason Sir, for you to be so angry. You need to read up a bit of history yourself. As per the famous Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal, the demand for Pakistan was in fact only a political move by Jinnah to obtain special favors for Muslims (not other minorities) in a united India. It was not meant to be a demand for a separate nation.Recommend

  • observer
    Mar 25, 2012 - 11:40AM

    @Ali Tanoli

    sir what about peoples who died during 1857 india freedom war and its start it by call in Jama
    Masjid Dehli…

    Yes, let us remember the valiant freedom fighters of 1957,

    Mangal Pandey,
    Rani Laxmi Bai,
    Tatya Tope,
    Kunwar Singh,
    Bakht Khan,
    Bahadur Shah Zafar, etc.

    Some misguided ones tried to turn this into a Jihad and declared Haji Imdadullah as the Ameer. The majority of the Indians , of course were not interested in a Caliphate.

    Read William Dalrymple’s The Last Mughal or for a shorter version just visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndianRebellionof_1857

    So what about them?

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 25, 2012 - 12:05PM

    @sohaib: “You go on to question two nation theory like many of your ‘intellectual’ peers. this theory was the basis of the biggest movement of the muslims of India to free themselves of the Imperial British.”

    Sorry the Muslims of India who fought the British imperialism and went to jail for that reason were all part of Congress. Not a single person of Muslim league ever went to jail for even one day while Congress leaders (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and atheists) went to jail not for days or weeks but years at a stretch. Muslim League even boycotted the Quit India movement of 1942. So to associate the Two Nation Theory with the Muslim figt against iBritish imperialism is the height of hypocrisy. Its only purpose was to carve out a separate country ruled by Muslims once it became clear that India would gain independence.

    Recommend

  • Salim Ansari
    Mar 25, 2012 - 12:16PM

    @Ali Tanoli: sir what about peoples who died during 1857 india freedom war and its start it by call in Jama Masjid …

    Ali bhai, cut out that condescending attitude about all initiative being taken by Muslims. Closer to independence, Muslims had a 50:50 attitude towards British Rule – where as nearly 100% of hindus wanted british out.

    My interpretation of history says that the hindus pounced on the 1857 mutiny as a one in a lifetime chance to get close to the british, learn their ways and then throw them out.

    Recommend

  • Mar 25, 2012 - 1:53PM

    Another brilliant rendition by Saroop Ijaz. He minces nothing, a straight shooter, a perfect 10. Only people with open minds and eyes can relate to him. I wish if I had .00001 percent of his talent.

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Mar 25, 2012 - 2:39PM

    Every time I read you, I not only enjoy but I learn as well.

    Recommend

  • American Pakistani
    Mar 25, 2012 - 3:09PM

    @Hold your horses “For India, two nation theory has been a blessing in disguise though…Just think of a basket case like Pakistan being a part of India. India would have then lived with the ignominy of Osama’s killing in India…”

    The rules of physics dictate that without an action, you can’t expect a reaction. With no partition of United India, there would have been no paranoid generals fighting holy wars with US against Soviets, no kashmir conflict, no jihadis, and hence no bin laden. You can’t pick an event from history and look at it in isolation. No one can say for sure what this region would have looked like today had there been no partition. I have heard this argument from many Indians before and it’s completely false and laughable. Try to use your brain if you have one.

    Recommend

  • abhi
    Mar 25, 2012 - 3:18PM

    sohaib, can you list down the names you think made more sacrifice than bhagat singh.

    Recommend

  • A Peshawary
    Mar 25, 2012 - 3:38PM

    I personllay thank Mr. Eajz for remembering the immortal Bhaghat Sing in most appropriate and suitable manner. Let the governement/politicians do what ever they want do as they won’t do anything thing for free (that is without thier personal benefit). The civil society must celeberate the achievements of heros like Bhagat Sing. Let us join togather for the same cause.

    A Peshawary

    Recommend

  • Sinclair
    Mar 25, 2012 - 5:09PM

    Mr. Saroop Ijaz, Brilliant column! The way you wove the different threads into your narrative – you are more of an artist than commentator. Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 25, 2012 - 5:37PM

    @Ali Tanoli: If you find it difficult to acknowledge any of the Hindu/ Sikh/ Agnostic freedom fighters as heroes maybe you should check out Ashfaqulla Khan of the Hindustan Republican Association

    Recommend

  • kilo
    Mar 25, 2012 - 6:14PM

    People living in west pakistan never considerd bengalis as one of them.Vast majority of pakistan’s probably did not see a bengali till 1970s so how can any one blame them. Bengalis only provided an excuse for mulla’n and military to pursue their nefarious objectives.

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 25, 2012 - 6:15PM

    As usual, a wonderfully informative piece by Saroop Ijaz. I learnt many historical facts I was not aware of. Thanks!

    You write, “A national state-level apology to the sovereign people of Bangladesh for the crimes committed requires no intricate argument; it should be done since it is clearly the decent thing to do.”

    A majority of Pakistanis will be shocked if that were to happen; they still blame India and Mukti-Bahini. In my humble view, not to be able to do something which is a “decent thing to do” has been the weak point of Pakistan. I can not recall any thing of the kind ever done by Pakistan in the past. In matters such as these “denial” is the policy. It would certainly enhance Pakistan’s reputation in the comity of nations if it were to do the decent thing as a matter of habit.

    (BTW I was a witness to what happened in 1971)

    Recommend

  • R.V.S.Sharma
    Mar 25, 2012 - 6:24PM

    @Mirza:
    Mirza saheb ! We claim every great soul in Pakistan who fought the british in his humble way. And we will throw every fellow in India who joined hands with the British. No religion for us – nation alone matters.

    Recommend

  • Mar 25, 2012 - 7:08PM

    @sohaib: We all know that two nation theory is NO theory at all. If it is true then why majority of Muslims Of this Subcontinent, India, were not inclusive. Why Mohajirs are there. Why thousands of Muslims are being killed by Muslims?

    Recommend

  • Mar 25, 2012 - 7:24PM

    @gp65: You are right but all this can never be understood in a country that has with vigorous intent tweaked history books and do not permit the young generation access to true history.Regards.

    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 25, 2012 - 8:23PM

    @A Peshawary: You will be pleased to know that there is a up market department store ‘Peshawari’ in Sec 19 Chandigarh and a ‘Peshawarian Di Hatti’ in Ambala. Both the stores are doing very well.

    Recommend

  • Nangdharangg Pakistani
    Mar 25, 2012 - 8:52PM

    EXCELLENT !!!

    Recommend

  • Arijit Sharma
    Mar 26, 2012 - 12:44AM

    @American Pakistani: ” … *The rules of physics dictate that without an action, you can’t expect a reaction. With no partition of United India, there would have been no paranoid generals fighting holy wars with US against Soviets, no kashmir conflict, no jihadis, and hence no bin laden. * … “

    The Islamic supremacist factors that were responsible for Pakistan, would be within United India’s border and their attentions would be turned inwards. Muslims are not interested in equality, but supremacy. Therefore, partition was a good thing to happen.

    Recommend

  • Adil
    Mar 26, 2012 - 4:20AM

    I don’t know why many Indians continue to harbour negative feelings and opinions towards Jinnah despite the book which was written by Jaswant Singh in 2009, I have not read the book but the author did massive research in order to show different perspectives about Jinnah and partition. I always read comments that Muslim League leaders never went to jail whereas Congress faced sentences and hardships so this makes Congress the real and faithful sons and heroes of the Subcontinent not Jinnah. OK but would you please go and read how the supporters of Bhagat Singh used to criticize Congress and Gandhiji and held them responsible for the executions of Bhagat Singha and his two companions? Even in this movie where Ajay Devgan played the role of Bhagat Singh, Gandhi was shown silently walking away from questions when few activists said that history will never forgive you and keep questioning you….Now please don’t say that ISI financed such movies.

    Recommend

  • Adil
    Mar 26, 2012 - 4:43AM

    @VINOD:

    You are right but all this can never be understood in a country that has with vigorous intent tweaked history books and do not permit the young generation access to true history.

    Sir, could you please tell me then how come such a magnificent articles gets published on a Pakistani website? Who do you think is the author himself?He’s not some Indian,British,Bangladeshi,Afghan or American but a Pakistani. I know the education system in Pakistan needs a lot of improvement and make over but if you want to believe that every Pakistani is some follower of Hafiz Saeed,OBL or Zaid Hamid then it’s your own choice.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 5:34AM

    @Author:

    “Singh was involved in the assassination of British police officer John Saunders. He eluded efforts by the police to capture him. Together with Batukeshwar Dutt, he undertook a successful effort to throw two bombs and leaflets inside the Central Legislative Assembly – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh

    Wasn’t he a terrorist? At least Indian call such people terrorists. Remember Sikhs and Kashmiris fighting for the same cause, how were they treated and what were they called.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 8:15AM

    @haroon khan:

    “Why isn’t there a chapter in our history books about Bhagat singh’s contribution in the freedom struggle? why must he be sidelined because of this atheism.”

    There should be at least an honorable mention of him befitting his stature. However, our Indian friends call people committing such acts like throwing bombs inside the Central Legislature and killing police officers to achieve liberation as terrorist. Isn’t it true in case of Kashmiri and Sikh people?

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 8:37AM

    @dasmir:

    “What can you say about the depth of hatred and mindset that erects monuments in the name of Invaders of the country.”

    You never condemn the Aryan invaders just because they are Hindu now and your religious and social elite also.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 8:40AM

    @Singh:
    “You need to read Indian history book to get better understanding of true history of Pre-1947 indian subcontinent. It is matter of fact that in Pakistan, it is censored & tweaked.”

    As if India hasn’t done the same thing.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 8:56AM

    @unbeliever:
    “but was started by a devout brahmin who refused to touch a greased bullet. it was after this war that britishers learned to leave out brahmins….”

    Now I realize that both nations have taught tough lessons to history. We were taught about the use of animal fat including pigs and cows resulting the refusal of Muslim and Hindu soldiers to touch the bullets which lead to the general mutiny. By the way, since when did the Brahmans start joining the army instead of performing their holy religious duties.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 9:12AM

    @Lawangin:
    “Tow nations theory is nothnig but the negation of centruried long scientific reasoning of human sociial development. Never ever in the mordren time of state building, any religious palyed the primary bond of putting their poeple to make them a separate nation.”

    Hold on for a second my friend. I am sure you must have heard the name of a state called Israel. And, I am not talking about a state in medieval times but the one that was created around 1948 by bringing people of all nationalities, races and color from all around the world and the thing common among them was their religion. OK, that was in 1948, may be it was too distant past. So what was exactly the case with East Timur and South Sudan. Weren’t these predominantly Christian majority areas within Muslim majority states. The moral lesson is better to think first and speak later.

    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 26, 2012 - 9:13AM

    @Adil: May your tribe grow

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 9:30AM

    @Mirza:

    “Sad to say but our heros are OBL and other Muslims even if they are a bad name to Muslims, Pakistan and Islam.”

    I don’t understand who “us” you talk about. My guess is overwhelming majority of Pakistanis don’t envy OBL, let alone consider him a hero, rather a foolish friend of Muslims, if not an enemy. Why not to speak up for the majority rather than cursing them for the deeds of a few.

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 26, 2012 - 10:06AM

    @American Pakistani:
    Like Pakistanis have a lot of brain!!!! Two nation theory based on a religion! (An excuse to form an unit where the elite ‘jagirdars’ could have a say in everything but none for the poor). Congratulations!! You guys are the most intelligent on this planet and hence the state of Pakistan… ‘Jannat’!!!

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 26, 2012 - 10:16AM

    @Truth Seeker:
    “Wasn’t he a terrorist? At least Indian call such people terrorists. Remember Sikhs and Kashmiris fighting for the same cause, how were they treated and what were they called.”
    Oh!!!!!!!!!!! I get it… Osama Bin Laden (who had a hundred wives and god knows how many children) is a saviour of Islam and there fore he is a hero and not a terrorist. But some one who denounced his youth and fought the British because he wanted Indians to be free becomes a ‘Terrorist’ because he is a ‘Sikh’ and not a ‘Muslim’ and apparently not fighting to save ‘Islam’ but to save his fellow beings from an opressor….. Gooooooood logic!! Lots of truth sought!

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 10:21AM

    @wonderer:

    “the demand for Pakistan was in fact only a political move by Jinnah to obtain special favors for Muslims (not other minorities) in a united India. It was not meant to be a demand for a separate nation.”

    Let’s be honest with each other. The Quaid initially did not want a separate country for Muslims of the Subcontinent as Ayesha rightly mentioned in her book. Even he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 which was basically a framework of confederation for united India allowing some autonomy to its confederating units, a plan which Congress out rightly rejected. So what were the real intentions of both the parties? My understanding is that the Muslims were suspicious of the intentions of the Hindu majority, represented by Congress, that they would be mistreated in revenge for their rule of such a long time even being in minority, and Congress would use this easy opportunity presented to them by the principal of “rule of majority” aka democracy. And the actions of Congress firmed their suspicion every time they got a chance and the last nail in the coffin was the rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan. So you better blame yourself for the Partition rather than wasting time in nullifying the Two Nation Theory.

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 26, 2012 - 11:10AM

    @Truth Seeker:
    When you read something you need to read it full and then come to a conclusion. Let me quote you the complete paragraph that you quoted from-
    “Seeking revenge for the death of Lala Lajpat Rai at the hands of the police, Singh was involved in the assassination of British police officer John Saunders. He eluded efforts by the police to capture him. Together with Batukeshwar Dutt, he undertook a successful effort to throw two bombs and leaflets inside the Central Legislative Assembly while shouting slogans of Inquilab Zindabad. Subsequently they volunteered to surrender and be arrested. Held on this charge, he gained widespread national support when he underwent a 116 day fast in jail, demanding equal rights for British and Indian political prisoners. During this time, sufficient evidence was brought against him for a conviction in the Saunders case, after trial by a Special Tribunal and appeal at the Privy Council in England. He was convicted and subsequently hanged for his participation in the murder, aged 23. His legacy prompted youth in India to begin fighting for Indian independence and he continues to be a youth idol in modern India, as well as the inspiration for several films. He is commemorated with a large bronze statue in the Parliament of India, as well as a range of other memorials.

    Recommend

  • Truth Sought
    Mar 26, 2012 - 11:16AM

    “Isn’t it true in case of Kashmiri and Sikh people?” –
    It is also the same for the Baluchis and the erstwhile East Pakistanis and the ‘Mukti Bahini’…..

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 11:21AM

    @gp65:

    “Sorry the Muslims of India who fought the British imperialism and went to jail for that reason were all part of Congress. Not a single person of Muslim league ever went to jail for even one day while Congress leaders (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and atheists) went to jail not for days or weeks but years at a stretch. Muslim League even boycotted the Quit India movement of 1942.”

    The reason that no prominent leader of the All India Muslim League went to jail because their leader was the top most expert of the Law and he never allowed anyone or himself to break any law. He knew how to fight his case while remaining with in the legal bounds and you would agree that the Britishers themselves could not imagine breaking their own law to round up and sent them to jail for doing nothing unlawful. And that was the reason for not joining Quit India movement because it would necessarily mean breaking the law.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 12:27PM

    @VINOD:

    “We all know that two nation theory is NO theory at all.”

    There are more than 50 Muslim majority countries. How would creating one more country out of Pakistan nullify the “Two Nation Theory” which essentially means that Muslims and Hindus are two different identities/philosophies. How would you explain the creation of Israel purely on the basis of religion and, more recently, East Timur and South Sudan where Christian majority areas separated from Muslim majority states.

    Below are the main points of the Two Nation Theory as explained by the Qauid-e-Azam. I ask you, or any other Indian for that matter, to answer each and every point raised by the Quaid, and come up with a conclusive result answering all the questions.

    “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is only a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality. This misconception of one Indian Nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.” (Excerpt from the Presidential Address by the Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore March 23, 1940)

    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 26, 2012 - 12:28PM

    @Truth Seeker: Bhagat Singh and his comrades were protesting against a foreign power the British. In J&K there has been a elected local Muslim Chief Minister since i can remember,in Punjab the CM has almost always been a Sikh .Whatever you have seen in the two states are just political power struggles not freedom movements. Let Yasin Malik or Geelani become the CM of J&K and see the change in the tune. We have seen the tune change in Punjab. In case you can not make out from my name i am a Indian Sikh

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 26, 2012 - 1:22PM

    @Truth Seeker:

    You do have a point I must admit, but your arguments are subjective, to say the least.

    You are right when you say, ” Muslims were suspicious of the intentions of the Hindu majority,” This suspicion was the creator of Pakistan (Not Jinnah), and continues to be the millstone around Pakistan’s neck to date.

    I would advise you to go through the book “Tinderbox” by M. J. Akbar, (HarperCollins India).

    You and me have very different ideas about Jinnah and Pakistan, and I must inform you that I have no intention of getting into any argument with you. Not all I write could go through the ET moderators. You are welcome to hold your views.

    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 26, 2012 - 1:25PM

    @Truth Seeker: The person who refused to remove the cap of the cartridge with his teeth as the cartridge was greased with animal (pig&cow) fat was Mangal Pandey , he was a Brahmin .

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 1:27PM

    @VINOD:
    “You are right but all this can never be understood in a country that has with vigorous intent tweaked history books and do not permit the young generation access to true history”

    I don’t know which imaginary world you live in. In this modern world of internet, electronic and print media explosion, and satellite communications, no one can hide the truth for a long time. I can only sympathize with your condition of self-pity and self righteousness. Take care.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 1:50PM

    @Truth Sought:

    Isn’t it true in case of Kashmiri and Sikh people?

    “It is also the same for the Baluchis and the erstwhile East Pakistanis and the ‘Mukti Bahini’…..”

    First give independence to Khalistan and IO Kashmir then talk about East Pakistan and Baluchistan.

    Recommend

  • Truth Sought
    Mar 26, 2012 - 1:58PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    And that was the reason for not joining Quit India movement because it would necessarily mean breaking the law.
    Which basically means the followers of the muslim league did not deserve independence and a nation…..

    Recommend

  • G. Din
    Mar 26, 2012 - 2:46PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    “And, I am not talking about a state in medieval times but the one that was created around 1948 by bringing people of all nationalities, races and color from all around the world and the thing common among them was their religion.”
    Israel was not “created” but a state that was handed back to the original inhabitants of that land and who had been chased out to the ends of the earth. Jews are one race. They had different nationalities obviously because of the dire circumstances they were subjected to. “color”? what color? A tan on your skin does not make you a person of different colour. When we speak about people of different color that has reference to a different genetic make-up. Jews are a homogenous genetic race.
    “So what was exactly the case with East Timur and South Sudan.”
    Both those states came into being because of the cussedness of Muslims who cannot tolerate minorities living a dignified life. Look at Hindus in Pakistan today. If they had not been decimated, they could very well opt for a separate country of their own.

    Recommend

  • amlendu
    Mar 26, 2012 - 3:00PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    Bhagat Singh was not fighting to carve out a state in name of religion from a bigger state where everyone had same rights and federating units were equally autonomous. If Indians had an equal right to a Britisher under british rule, Bhagat Singh would not have done what he had to do. The terrorists you mentioned (Khalistanis and Jihadis) are not interested in equality of citizens or legal rights of federating units. They are interested in establishing a violent theocracy and exclude all other people from their lands. If Khalistanis were successful hindus and muslims would have been second class citizen in Khalistan and if jihadis are successful in Kashmir then hindus, budhists and sikh will cease to exist in Kashmir.
    Comparing Bhagta Singh to these scums is sacrilege and intellectual dishonesty of highest order and it is shameful that you call yourself “Truth Seeker” and then indulge in this kind of false dichotomy and banality.Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 3:22PM

    @Arijit Sharma:

    “The Islamic supremacist factors that were responsible for Pakistan, would be within United India’s border and their attentions would be turned inwards. Muslims are not interested in equality, but supremacy. Therefore, partition was a good thing to happen.”

    As I repeatedly said that it was the Hindu leadership who time and again pushed away the Muslims in order to divide and weaken them. Although the Muslims did not want a separate country, at least initially, and were only interested in ensuring that they wouldn’t be mistreated by the Hindu majority, but they were compelled to demand a separate homeland. And look the real face of your leadership, they put all the blame on Mr. Jinnah in order to look good in the eyes of the naive Hindu public. Now, if the Partition is good for you, it is good for us, then what is the problem with you Indians who waste so much time negating the Two Nation Theory.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 3:46PM

    @Indian:
    “When you read something you need to read it full and then come to a conclusion…
    Held on this charge, he gained widespread national support when he underwent a 116 day fast in jail, demanding equal rights for British and Indian political prisoners. During this time, sufficient evidence was brought against him for a conviction in the Saunders case, after trial by a Special Tribunal and appeal at the Privy Council in England. He was convicted and subsequently hanged for his participation in the murder, aged 23. His legacy prompted youth in India to begin fighting for Indian independence and he continues to be a youth idol in modern India, as well as the inspiration for several films.”

    Well it is time you start reading too. Here is one suggestion.

    Did the ideological distance between Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi decide the young revolutionary’s fate? Was he a victim of Gandhi’s apathy? V.N. Datta’s latest book Gandhi and Bhagat Singh focuses on Bapu’s attitude towards Bhagat Singh’s trial and execution.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 4:06PM

    @wonderer:

    “A majority of Pakistanis will be shocked if that were to happen; they still blame India and Mukti-Bahini. In my humble view, not to be able to do something which is a “decent thing to do” has been the weak point of Pakistan. I can not recall any thing of the kind ever done by Pakistan in the past.”

    The following links tells the details of the Indian conspiracy against Pakistan to create Bangladesh and how India – the most noble nation on earth – dealt with the similar situations when arisen in their own backyard. Never heard of the decent act of apology.

    1. “Operation Jackpot” The Indian Sponsored Subversion – wikipedia.org
    2. According to official figures, 43,000 Kashmiris have been killed – CNN
    3. Mass Graves Hold Thousands, Kashmir Inquiry Finds – New York Times
    4. Over 145,000 Sikhs have been killed, tortured and remain missing – witness84.com
    5. “Operation Blue Star” Indian Army killed 1500 Sikhs in Golden Temple
    6. 1984 anti-Sikh riots, 5000 Sikhs killed

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 4:40PM

    @jagjit sidhoo:

    “Whatever you have seen in the two states are just political power struggles not freedom movements.”

    The most bloodiest power struggles in the history of mankind in which tens of thousands of people died. Don’t pretend to be so naive.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 4:48PM

    @Truth Sought:

    *Which basically means the followers of the muslim league did not deserve independence and a nation…..”

    The whole world knows the outcome of the peaceful legal struggle of Muslims lead by the Quaid. If you can get something without breaking the law and going to jail, only the fools would prefer going to jail in order to get that thing.

    Recommend

  • Mar 26, 2012 - 5:23PM

    @Adil: Dear Adil, I appreciate your response, but what I have said is not my imagination. May I request you to kindly read many articles written by writers in Pakistan. Particularly “Distorted history”By Farhan Ahmed Shah,Published: November 10, 2011.Yes you are right that this author is also Pakistani but Sir, Such people who have studied history in detail are few and far. Due to tweaking the history the students in Pakistan are being taught tremendous falsehood. Sorry to say that..

    Recommend

  • amlendu
    Mar 26, 2012 - 5:30PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    Do you know about Maulana Abdula Kalam Azad or Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan?

    Recommend

  • amlendu
    Mar 26, 2012 - 5:38PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    “Now, if the Partition is good for you, it is good for us, then what is the problem with you Indians who waste so much time negating the Two Nation Theory.”

    We negate it because it implies that two different religions can not be part of a nation and by extension it implies that Indian muslims are not part of Indian nation and are alien to Indian nation. We do not accept this notion. Indian Muslims are as Indian as Indian Hindus and for that matter people of any belief system or no belief system. TNT is wrong because it says that to be a nation, people will have to be homogenous, by existing as a nation, we Indians of different religions, regions, languages and ethnicity, negate the two nation theory everyday.

    Recommend

  • Mar 26, 2012 - 5:45PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    First give independence to Khalistan and IO Kashmir then talk about East Pakistan and Baluchistan.
    Dude, The one who demands is the one who is supposed to explain the hypocrisy in his/her behavior….. And then he/she owns the right to ask… Khalistan is just a word now for Indians unlike a assumed reality for most who Pakistanis. As for IOK, may be Pakistan takes the lead and declare POK as an independent state and then we will follow. Do, you first…

    Recommend

  • Mar 26, 2012 - 5:47PM

    @Truth Seeker: I sincerely appreciate your vigorous writings. However in your zeal you miss the point what we are trying to say is that history is tweaked officially in Pakistan text books and hence the young students are taught garbage. Yes you are right those who are serious readers of history do learn the truth from internet etc.
    Other point about two nation theory that seems to be your passion.On 29 Dec 1930, in the Allahabad session of Muslim League Allama Iqbal’ in his presidential address called for an autonomous “state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims,” there on Muhammad Ali Jinnah espoused the Two Nation Theory. The two nation theory in nutshell argued that though living within the same geographical limits from centuries, Hindus and Muslims form two separate nations. Jinnah called for establishment of Pakistan in an independent and partitioned India so that the Muslims of the subcontinent can live in peace and practice their religion, culture, language, social customs, beliefs and economic interests.
    But has this statement come true? No! The truth, as slowly revealed by time is contrary to every statement made. The creation of Pakistan instead of providing any strength to Muslims of this subcontinent has weakened them in every possible way. Population of Muslims in India is 162 million, Pakistan 186 million and Bangladesh 156 million. Though, in the subcontinent, the Hindu population has remained consolidated the creation of Pakistan has divided this vast population of 505 million into three. With this major population together today they would have exercised major influences in the polity and social life of this subcontinent.

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 26, 2012 - 5:48PM

    @Truth Seeker:

    You have given the following to justify two-nation-theory:

    “(Excerpt from the Presidential Address by the Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore March 23, 1940)”

    Will you please reconcile this with Jinnah’s statement regarding the kind of Pakistan he wanted; the one most Pakistanis still thirst for? (It was sometime in 1948 addressed to your Constituent Assembly, if I am not wrong.)

    Do these two statements look like given by the same man?

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 5:53PM

    @G. Din:

    “Both those states came into being because of the cussedness of Muslims who cannot tolerate minorities living a dignified life. Look at Hindus in Pakistan today. If they had not been decimated, they could very well opt for a separate country of their own.”

    You mean it? Don’t you? So apart from Kashmiris, Sikhs, Maoists, Nixilites, etc. etc. the remaining Muslims of India still have the option for a separate country of their own.

    Recommend

  • Mar 26, 2012 - 5:56PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    I am so glad you are coming back to the actual heroes of independence atleast… Gandhi and Bhagat Singh both fought for India. Their approach was different. One said ‘Slap me on the other cheek if you are not done with slapping me on one’ to achieve what he thought was his right, the other said ‘I will slap you back in return for every slap you land on me. So, give me my right’….. Their intentions were the same. We Indians respect them for their intentions. Gandhi won because he understood the fact – You cannot win a powerful enemy with powerful weapons by fighting him/her with guns. But you can ideologically and morally beat him/her down by showing him/her that you are right and he/she is wrong…. Bhagat Singh was more like ‘I will fight you till i die’…. Gandhi was right for that day and still is right for today…

    Recommend

  • Reasonable
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:01PM

    @Truth Seeker:

    If that was the case then India would have got divided into 22 states or 150 religions or whatever numbers they had but still India remains one in whatever state they are in. And mind you India still has more number of Muslims, then Pakistan and also enough number of other minority communities. The irony is based on the same above principal Pakistan was formed and got divided. I am no historian to comment on merits or reasons for Mr Jinnah to propose two nation theory.

    Recommend

  • Mar 26, 2012 - 6:04PM

    @Truth Seeker: Sir you yourself say there are more then 50 Muslim countries; if religion is the basis there should be one.Foundation theory of “two nation” was not as sound as it was made to be. As:-
    (a) The people of Pakistan and India are not of a different race. Some starters might have come as invaders but over a period they have blended in the cauldron of India. Including the converts they have become the same race as of the rest of India specially the North.
    (b)Their history in no way is separate. In fact the history of the Muslims in India was carved in India and could in no way be separated. The history of Muslims in India begins In 712 CE. The Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab. Delhi Sultanate ended with the demise of the Mughal Empire. The fields of Muslim history are left behind all over India
    (c)Though, the religion was different, the inclusive culture of this country has provided everyone sufficient space like Jews, Christians, Parsis Zaurastraians and Bahais to coexist.
    (d) The language and social customs of Muslims are not common. The customs of Muslims in Punjab, Bengal or Kerala have much dissimilarity.

    If we closely study, Pakistan is a Muslim State created by Muslim politicians and intelligencia of a united India, but ruled by Sunni feudal lords of West Punjab in collaboration with right wing Mullah. They have dominated every sphere of life and institutions of polity May it be civil or the army. It has been amply demonstrated by them that no one else will be accepted. They declared every other sect of Muslims as non Muslims. Even the Sunni Muslims from outside Punjab are not acceptable and have been declared as MOHAJIRS. Millions of Muslims from Bihar who chose Pakistan as their promised land and went to East Pakistan are not acceptable and living in camps of Bangladesh.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:14PM

    @G. Din:

    “Israel was not “created” but a state that was handed back to the original inhabitants of that land.”

    So when you are going to ask your strategic partner to hand back the land they occupied to the original inhabitants. And when you, Indians, being the most fair nation on planet earth, start calling back your immigrants in order show solidarity with the natives of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:14PM

    @Truth Seeker:

    OK, but that does not mean what I wrote is not correct. I said the following:

    “A majority of Pakistanis will be shocked if that were to happen; they still blame India and Mukti-Bahini. In my humble view, not to be able to do something which is a “decent thing to do” has been the weak point of Pakistan. I can not recall any thing of the kind ever done by Pakistan in the past.”

    If you want to prove me wrong you have to give instances when Pakistan did the “decent” thing, not when India did the indecent thing. Why not accept what i said is true? No?

    Now, try again.

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:34PM

    Here is the most important argument, which proves that the Two Nation Theory was wrong, and creation of Pakistan was not the outcome of this theory.

    URDU the National Language of Pakistan came into being only because Hindus and Muslims lived together in harmony, and they were culturally united. Otherwise the birth of a language synthesizing Hindustani and Persian was not possible.

    Pakistan was created by the feudal land owners in Punjab and Sindh to protect their interests, which they successfully accomplished and are still enjoying the fruits of.

    If Muslims are one Nation, why then is Pakistan not at peace with itself?

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:35PM

    @amlendu:

    “We negate it because it implies that two different religions can not be part of a nation and by extension it implies that Indian muslims are not part of Indian nation and are alien to Indian nation.”

    But only after getting rid of the majority so that you don’t have any difficulty controlling/exploiting the remaining minority. And what exactly are your troubles with Maoists, Nixilites. Kashmiris and Khalistani Sikhs? And, what is the name of the movement seeking repatriation of all Muslims?

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:44PM

    @wonderer:

    “You and me have very different ideas about Jinnah and Pakistan, and I must inform you that I have no intention of getting into any argument with you. Not all I write could go through the ET moderators. You are welcome to hold your views.”

    Yes, I already know that he is not your hero, instead your dishonest leaders, and we couldn’t love him more. Not all I write also go through the ET moderators. They have even stricter standards for us.

    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:45PM

    @Truth Seeker: “And that was the reason for not joining Quit India movement because it would necessarily mean breaking the law” If Indians had not broken British law we would still be under them.

    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:49PM

    @amlendu: Spot ON

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 26, 2012 - 6:59PM

    @Truth Seeker:

    Thanks! You couldn’t resist the temptation about our “dishonest leaders”. No matter, but you could be a very good communicator if you were not so judgmental.

    Please do send your reply to two other comments by me; one about “decent” things, and the other about TNT.

    Recommend

  • Sinclair
    Mar 26, 2012 - 7:07PM

    @TruthSeeker

    You have commitment, I will say that for you. Couple of other things.

    Dont argue just for the sake of winning an argument. It starts going in all sorts of directions.
    Jinnah is not such a weak figure in Pakistan that you need to defend his legacy from every baddie indian commenter. Try to look at others point of view too.
    Whatever is said here, facts are not going to change. Pakistan is a reality and Indians know it. We are not out to get you. The problem is inside Pakistan. Be at peace, please!
    Recommend

  • jagjit sidhoo
    Mar 26, 2012 - 7:07PM

    @Truth Seeker: i am a Indian Sikh who is a permanent resident in Punjab so please do not for a moment think you know more about the situation in Punjab(India) than i do. Have you ever visited Punjab or J&K ?

    Recommend

  • observer
    Mar 26, 2012 - 8:20PM

    @Truth Seeker

    By the way, since when did the Brahmans start joining the army instead of performing their holy religious duties.

    Do a Google search for Mangal Pandey, or just visit

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey

    Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
    John 8:32
    New International Version (NIV)

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 26, 2012 - 8:43PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    “The whole world knows the outcome of the peaceful legal struggle of Muslims lead by the Quaid. If you can get something without breaking the law and going to jail, only the fools would prefer going to jail in order to get that thing.”
    Would you please enlighten the world as to how the Quaid’s peacefull legal struggle secured independence from the British???? All he managed to do was form a separate state called ‘Pakistan’ after the eventual fact of independence came to be real. Until then Muslim league kept on dragging its feet thinking that if independence came then ‘Hindus’ would dominate the scene everywhere (which did not entirely happen thanks to the ‘Constitution of India’ layed by a Dalit Mr.Ambedkar which gave such protection to all the minorities of India that they have survived and now thriving). Your Quaid envisioned a ‘Secular’ country with a muslim majority and ‘NOT A ISLAMIC REPUBLIC’ which successive rulers have made it into… Now the state has reached a point of no return…… Congratulations for that!! You guys have successfully negated the concept and vision of your own ‘Quaid’……

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 10:16PM

    @wonderer:

    “Please do send your reply to two other comments by me; one about “decent” things, and the other about TNT.”

    My friend I have already answered your questions. Please read all of my posts in this article; but before that promise to read all of them, including my replies to other people, and their complete text; and you will have the answers to both of your questions.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 26, 2012 - 10:21PM

    @Indian:

    “Your Quaid envisioned a ‘Secular’ country with a muslim majority and ‘NOT A ISLAMIC REPUBLIC’ which successive rulers have made it into… Now the state has reached a point of no return…… Congratulations for that!! You guys have successfully negated the concept and vision of your own ‘Quaid’……”

    Agree with you, but what a pleasantly surprising change of stance about Jinnah.

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 26, 2012 - 10:53PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    Agree with you, but what a pleasantly surprising change of stance about Jinnah.
    Fortunately our text books don’t teach us that Jinnah was a bad man but they don’t show him as an good man also. Indian text books stand neutral on this. May be that is because the editors of text books had to address the Muslim sentiments of India which is good 19% of India’s population right now as i write this, so they rather preferred saying that Jinnah formed Pakistan as he wanted more power to Muslims. But i am not sure if that is the same in Pakistan. Your Quaid was a ‘liberal’ (possibly a group of people in current day Pakistan whom the masses at large have learnt to see as ‘Unislamic’) who used to drink and smoke and follow a highly westernized way of life with heafty spending. Also he was ‘secular’ (another terminology which most Pakistanis would consider ‘Unislamic’ and was called as an ambassador of ‘Hindu-Muslim unity’ by Gandhi himself!!). How ironical that he formed a state to protect minorities (Muslims) at that time and ended up doing something which he would be utterly disgraced of had he been alive today (considering where minorities of current day Pakistan stand)…
    Indians don’t hate Jinnah, Indians don’t hate the formation of Pakistan but Indians surely hate the formation of a unit which describes itself by a theology because that is against the very spirit of the idea of India. Just to end the conversation – Do you know why Gandhi got killed by Nathuram Godse? – because In Godse’s view, Gandhi was giving into Muslim interests in ways that seemed unfair and anti-national. He blamed Gandhi for the Partition of India….

    Recommend

  • dasmir
    Mar 26, 2012 - 11:03PM

    @Truth Seeker:

    History is a narration of wars and victories and migrations.Aryans did invade and most of Pakhtuns and Punjab has Aryan blood.And I for one donot disparage or like it.It is a process and will go on.But for national narrative like Pakistan I feel uncomfortable with thought of recent invaders as national icons.

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 26, 2012 - 11:10PM

    @Truth Seeker:
    Do go through this article written by a Pakistani journalist Dr.Farrukh Saleem about India:
    http://smileosmile.com/misc/india-by-dr-farrukh-saleem-a-pakistani-journalist/

    Some eye openers about Mr.Jinnah at :
    http://smileosmile.com/misc/roots-of-jinnah-a-amazing-historical-fact-probably-known-to-very-few/

    Recommend

  • Mar 27, 2012 - 10:58AM

    I take this opportunity to thank the moderator and entire staff of Express Tribune for publishing my two replies in response to “Truth Seeker” on two nation theory. Though the comments may not have gone well with some the acceptance on your discussion board has been in the true spirit of free speech. Hats off and regards

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 27, 2012 - 11:00AM

    @Truth Seeker:

    Cheers!

    No, you have not answered them.

    You have to tell me of “decent” things done by Pakistan in the past.

    You have to answer my views on TNT.

    You have to reconcile the statements of Jinnah in Lahore March 23, 1940 and the famous one on Pakistan of his dreams.

    I know you are very busy (everyone wants to learn from you), but you owe me this much. Or, you can accept my point of view.

    Recommend

  • Truth Seeker
    Mar 27, 2012 - 8:44PM

    @wonderer:

    I promise to answer all of your question in this article or somewhere else when I find time to do so. Appreciate your thirst for finding the truth.

    Recommend

More in Opinion