Visualising a tolerant Pakistan

Published: July 13, 2012

The writer is a suspended member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and Media Advisor to the Co-Chairman PPP

We began our lives as a nation with hope and idealism. Pakistan and Pakistanis had those beliefs because of the foundation laid by our Quaid, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Though ignored in our textbooks, in the speeches of parliamentarians and by our state institutions, the speech Mr Jinnah gave to the first constituent assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, should have been enough guidance to our rulers and permanent establishment.

Here are those words: “We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

According to the Quaid, “…you will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

When Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and those who worked with him to create a homeland for the Muslims of India began their quest for Pakistan, did they have second thoughts about where they were heading? Or, is it just a tragic consequence that we lost our guide, our leader so soon and lost our way?

Having grown up in a family where Mr Jinnah was known personally, his vision was what propelled us towards this new, brighter future in a land unknown to us. The contrived and Islamist Quaid of Pakistan’s current textbooks never existed. It is nothing less than a tragedy that in post-Ziaul Haq Pakistan, youngsters appear to have been brainwashed with an image of the founding father that has nothing to do with reality.

Jinnah did not only have the ability to tolerate, but also to listen and absorb different views. Among Mr Jinnah’s closest friends, advisors and members of our first cabinet were Hindus, Parsis, Ahmadis, Sunnis, Shias and Christians. Pakistan’s first law minister was a Hindu — Jogendra Nath Mandal. And, it was not tokenism in any form.

Some Pakistanis push for the promotion of a ‘soft image’ for Pakistan through fashion shows and the extravagant entertainment of visiting dignitaries. The reality for vast segments of our population, especially those who are not Sunni Punjabi Muslim males is very different. The unwillingness to address the real concerns of our citizens and to mask it in a cloak of hyper-nationalism is extremely unsettling.

Pakistan’s less powerful communities like the large Shia population, is being steadily targeted. Whether it is Shia doctors and other professionals being killed one by one — while the rest collect their families and leave their homeland for safer grounds — or the poor and voiceless Christian communities, the Hindus of Sindh or our Ahmadi brothers and sisters, none should be forgotten.

The nation must wake up and wake up soon. We have to make choices. Today, our youth has seen more military dictatorships than democracy. The interrupted democracies of Pakistan and their subsequent demonisation by our establishment and our ‘free media’, are undermining the pluralist ideals of our founding fathers.

True democracy is not just about the right to vote. The freedom of the polity to be safe, to express itself freely and ultimately to be equal, if not in number, then as citizens, is the essence of the democratic ideal for which Pakistan was created.

Mob politics and the daily lives of our citizens suffering under the gun of militant groups cannot lead to a happy future for our country. We need to envision a future that is closer to the founders’ aspirations than what has been built by those who lost the way.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2012.

Reader Comments (164)

  • Tehreem
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:19PM

    Jinnah did act like an Islamist when his team and him use religion with two nation theory. Yup he was secular on governance activities but let us not forget this land was made on an religious argument. Hence there is no fault of the youngsters who believe this land should be theocracy. Our leaders weren’t clear. They got a land on Islam and than they tried nothing for it to become a welfare Islamic state.

    Recommend

  • Jul 13, 2012 - 9:26PM

    It was Republic of Pakistan and they made it Islamic Republic. Pakistanis didnt only pollute their own nationationality but the name of their religion too.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:26PM

    After the massive losses suffered by Mr JHinnah’s Muslim league in 1936-37 provincial elections in British India, where Congress Muslim candidates from Muslim majority areas defeated candidated of Muslim League, Mr Jinnah did start using very communal language in his speeches. I can quote numerous speeches by Mr Jinnah where the language used is communal , provocative and would drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims.

    Recommend

  • MAT
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:27PM

    I think you are absolutely rite, tolernace is something that is really missing in our society. We should let people live their own ways and respect each other with watever he bring to our society. Diversity(Barevlis, Deoabandis, Shias, Hindus, Christians, Parsis etc) is something that our society is quite rich in it and instead of taking some thing positive out of it, we end up killing each other. Time to wake up!!

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:29PM

    The Great Quaid is a universally beloved figure. Everyone is thankful to him for delivering millions of Muslims from the yoke of British and Hindu oppression. He was the lawyer not the Master. To the extent that he was a good Muslim, his opinions and personal manners will continue to shape Pakistan, while the rest will be dismissed as his personal quirks.Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:30PM

    In March 1940, Jinnah in a speech at Aligarh Muslim University accused Gandhi ‘to subjugate and vassalize the Muslims under a Hindu Raj’.

    Mr Jinnah in his presidential address to the League, in April 1941, said, in a united India ‘Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence.’ He said Pakistan was essential ‘to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country.’

    In March 1944, addressing the students of the Ailgarh Muslim University Jinnah declared: “Pakistan was born when the first Muslim landed in India in 712 A. D.” He asked the students to be prepared to shed their blood, if necessary, for achieving Pakistan.

    These are just snippets from numerous speeches, where his main logic was that Hindus and Muslims are two seperate nations and Islam would get wiped out in a Hindu majority democracy so he invoked religion to build is support.

    This cannot be denied.

    Recommend

  • G.Haider
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:32PM

    Quaid’s speech of August 11,1947 should be the part of constitution.

    Recommend

  • Amjad
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:33PM

    for that matter why was there a need of TWO NATION THEORY or some writers will still call it a delusion? c’mon these are NOT our problems, hindus or muslims, corruption still is corruption and our problem is not hindus or muslims or non muslims but the way this country has been run so far by corrupt elite and crooks and it’s a fact.

    you send these corrupt elites to any other nation and give them high posts they will ruin that country as well. so the problem is not weather pakistan should be a secular state or an islamic welfare state. religion has not harm this country/nation but corruption has. if a moulvi is corrupt he should be punished and brought to justice just like a crook should be. so where’s the problem again? non accountibility and no rule of law. religion, again, has nothing to do with anything. we have infront of us many different countries where they still operate on islamic laws for example the gulf region.

    take example of Qatar, which according to many, is the richest country on earth. there’s no democracy even. it’s still family ruling system in Qatar but look at the GDP ratio. look at the system they have in place. purely based on Islamic laws and run wonderfully by the Emir. so let’s not further brainwash our children by dividing them into liberals and conservatives. these things has nothing to do with a country as a whole.

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:34PM

    A very timely, pragmatic and balanced Op Ed by a seasoned politician. It is a cry, and a wakeup call for the people to see where Pakistan is going? She wrote “Pakistan’s first law minister was a Hindu”. Not only that the first to army chiefs were also non Muslims. In fact most Pakistanis cannot even imagine the type of first cabinet Pakistan had. I have been saying it and people are watching a war of terror being unleashed upon the secular and mainstream Muslims of Pakistan. Today Mr. Jinnah would have been killed by the rightwing terrorists for not being a reactionary Muslim. Liaqat Ali was killed by an army man in Rawalpindi just like two other elected PM of Pakistan in this same city. Let us hope that the fanatic terrorists do not takeover Pakistan.Recommend

  • THe Green Rebel
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:35PM

    Ms Isphahani.
    You have just quoted one speech of Quaid supporting your point of view. I can quote you a hundred of his speeches, in which he appears to be a staunch islamist. Please do not selectively analyse his speeches.
    Good dayRecommend

  • Mirza
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:39PM

    @Babloo:
    Can you please cool it a bit? Mr. Jinnah was a saint compared to current rightwing Pakistani leaders. By opposing him we can only strengthen the hands of terrorists. Of course he divided India on the basis of religion, yet he never wanted to make Pakistan a theocracy. He never was against the rights of minorities in Pakistan. In fact he had a Hindu write the first national anthem of Pakistan which was later changed after his death.
    Regards,
    MirzaRecommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:39PM

    Babloo, please stop your hateful harangue. There is nothing wrong in what the Great Quaid said or did. Had there been no Pakistan, Muslims would indeed have been wiped out in India. Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:42PM

    Also, any reference to Hindu minister of Mr Jinnah’s cabinet, Mr Joginder Nath Mondal, would be incomplete, without mentioning that he resigned from the cabinet and fled to India in 1950 to save his life and accused the Mr Liaqat administration of liquidating Hindus and reducing them to serfs in Pakistan.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ResignationletterofJogendraNath_Mandal

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:50PM

    @Babloo:
    Thank you for making the point of the author and what I have been saying. Pakistan changed for the worse after Mr. Jinnah, we all agree.Recommend

  • Cyma Khan
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:52PM

    Jinnah was neither secular nor theocratic because the Islamic concept of the state is neither secular nor theocratic. Stop putting Jinnah in Western definitions. Jinnah 14 August speech is completely misunderstood and Jinnah ideology cannot be defined by one speech. Don’t ignore the hundreds of Jinnah’s other speeches, letters, etc.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 9:54PM

    Mr Jinnah and Mr Gandhi, had different views on brotherhood of Hindus and Muslims.
    Mr Jinnah in his famous Lahore speech, 1940..said

    “………………………….
    It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our 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, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. 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 up for the government of such a state. …”

    Mr Gandhiji on Hindus and Muslims

    “My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.”

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan Khan
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:02PM

    For all those touting Jinnah’s 14 August speech to the exclusion of his 1,000 other speeches:

    “We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law, we are a nation”. (Jinnah on Muslims of India)

    Are these the words of a “secular” man?

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:02PM

    @Mr Mirza,
    I agree with you most of time. However in this case I must respectfully disagree with your notion that Mr Jinnah held that Hindus and Muslims can live in a country together. The primacy he placed on religious identity has no place in a democratic modern state.

    His entire Pakistan movement was based on the concept that Hindus and Muslims cannot live in a Hindu majority democracy because that would be same as living under Hindu raj. He was comfortable with Hindus living in a Muslim majority state. Its for all to see if his views about Muslims living in a Hindu majority India or Hindus living in a Muslim majority Pakistan , have been vindicated by the history of India and Pakistan of last 65 years or absolutely refuted.

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan Khan
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:05PM

    This book debunks the theory that Jinnah was secular (arguing that he was neither secular nor theocratic as the Islamic state is neither of the two):

    http://www.secularjinnah.co.uk/

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:08PM

    My note of appreciation for the Tribune moderators, for allowing me to set the record straight, by quoting directly from key speeches. We can reach the truth by honestly looking at all facts , even if some of them may be uncomfortable. No one has all the facts. But sharing them, we will have more than otherwise may be the case.

    Recommend

  • Ali Wali
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:12PM

    @Mirza: Committing acts of terror then running into Madrassa to hide, should not be confused with them lot taking over Pakistan. People will deal with this menace sooner or later. These murderers who use their version of Islam to justify target killings and mass murders are not part of normal Pakistan, nor they can survive in a hostile Pakistan in open.

    Recommend

  • P N Eswaran
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:12PM

    If you want to visualize a tolerant Pakistan, then begin with examining Jinnah’s secular credentials. I do not think any Pakistani can quote any speech of Jinnah other than his worn out August 11 speech. Jinnah created Pakistan not for Muslims but for him to be the head of the state. He exploited the communal Muslim mindset for this purpose. Pakistan’s origin is in communal demand and it would continue to live with intolerance like other Islamic countries.

    Recommend

  • vickram
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:19PM

    In his long political career Jinnah made one random secular speech that make you guys hail him as some sort of messiah. Can you quote one speech he made before that would appear that the new country he wanted was for all co-religionists ? You can’t, because he always visualized Pakistan, as one for Muslims, of Muslims and for Muslims.

    Don’t forget he was the one who called for ‘Direct Action Day’ and he was one great leader who never went to jail during the freedom struggle. After crying hoarse for years that Muslims and Hindoos can’t live together, suddenly in August 1947, JInnah becomes a secular statesman and he tells that all communities can live happily under his gaze, while his army is plotting an invasion somewhere.

    That’s why, his own, devoted followers saw through his hypocrisy and never made the pretense of making Pakistan an egalitarian society. Even before the blood of partition could dry, his brand new army, went into a war mode. Will any country headed by a statesman would do that ?

    Pakistan was launched with the wrong trajectory and it is continuing to fly at a tangent, slowly losing height. Recommend

  • Nehal
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:22PM

    Dear author at the time of caliphate of hazrat umer christians were allowed to do their religious activity, you cannot support your point by stating this statement of Quaid because in pure islamic state every minority is free to practice their religion.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:30PM

    In my opinion, both sides of the debate, characterize Jinnah incorrectly.
    Mr Jinnah, was neither a devout practicing Muslim nor a liberal democrat.
    His politics too changed over time. In 1920-ties, Mr Jinnah was the ‘ambassador of Hindi-Muslim unity’.
    From 1936 onwards, after severe losses in provincial elections, his politics were communal in nature where nationhood was synonomous with religion.
    Facts are stubborn things.

    Recommend

  • Munawar Ali Shah
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:32PM

    @Babloo: Quaid pressed for a separate muslim nation only because religious discrimination was rampant in the undivided India. Initially he only wanted there to be equal rights for everyone (case in point being the minority whose rights he was championing i.e. Muslims) in an undivided India. But then he grew disillusioned with the political atmosphere in India that would not allow this to happen. Then an only then did he demand a separate state for Muslims.

    To reiterate, Jinnah pressed for a separate muslim nation only because of religious discrimination in India. It’s ironic that people in Pakistan are becoming apologists for religious discrimination in the very state that was formed for the purpose of protecting the rights of a minority.

    Thats the point the writer is trying to make.

    Equal rights for everyone would only be possible in a secular state, which is obv. what Jinnah wanted. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

    Recommend

  • prakash
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:52PM

    It is a fact that Mr. Jinnah wanted a homeland for Muslims of the sub-continent. His intentions were perhaps noble towards his community. What turn of events took place later were apparently beyond his control and now are completely out of control of the intelligentsia which remember his famous speech quoted above in this article.
    But why do we keep on looking backwards.
    Mr. Jinnah is no more and neither is the Mahatma. May God rest their soul in peace.
    Can we please look at the ground situation.
    Pakistan has graduated from a Republic to an Islamic Republic..all others are second class citizens Can anybody or is their anybody on the horizon who has guts to change this course……..even the so called western educated ( presumed exposed to secular societies ) Imran Khan is talking of an Islamic welfare state ( not that anyone knows what it entails ).
    The crucial point to note is that a person of his stature has acknowledged deep in his mind that to change course is virtually impossible. Is his rhetoric out of conviction or helplessness only time will tell. One thing is for sure ( in my humble opinion ) that if he comes to power and does not succeed it could lead to chaos and catastrophic conditions as he has raised the level of expectations to dizzying heights. His failure will bring forces helping him and lurking in his shadow to the forefront.
    Who will oppose them ? Even now no one in his right mind has the guts to oppose/criticize them boldly despite all killings beheading etc. Just token comments!
    So what is going to happen.
    The rich feudals will strike a deal with them, the middle class will be content with their routine life and weary of the GUN and the majority, impoverished struggling to make both ends meet are already brainwashed in the madrassa’s and mosques.
    The next government which comes into power in Islamabad would be crucial for not only Pakistan but for all its neighbors.
    No wonder Pakistani’s say that they have an important role in this sub-continent.
    GOD blessRecommend

  • Hassan Ahmed
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:57PM

    @Amjad: Do you know where the money for Qatar comes from? Would the progress happen even without that money? And let us not forget the protests they had during Arab spring?

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:57PM

    @Munawar, How could Hindus discriminate against Muslims in British India, when the British were in power ? So your argument is malafide. In fact, the Congress always accused the British of favouring Muslim League and Muslim League leaders seldom organized mass movements against the British. At the social level, both Hindus and Muslims , hold prejudices against each other. The government cannot legislate the hearts of people. It can only legislate equal consititutional, political and legal rights for all its citizens, irrespective of religion. India has done so. Pakistan has not done so. The fact that 150 million mUslims live in India and have not fled to Pakistan, speaks for itself.

    Recommend

  • faraz
    Jul 13, 2012 - 10:59PM

    I used to quote the 11 August speech very passionately, until I read about the scale of communal massacres that took place in 1974. Sorry mam, secular Jinnah won’t sell

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:10PM

    Just ask yourself,
    If Pakistan offered to accept all Muslim and other minorities living in India, what % of Indian Muslims would migrate to Pakistan ?
    Then ask yourself,
    If India offered to accept all Hindus and other minorities living in Pakistan, what % of them would migrate to India ?
    The answer to those two questions, would reveal the answer to all other questions being asked in this column.

    Recommend

  • Abbas from the US
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:15PM

    Thank you Ms Isphaini for this very valid reminder.

    The Indian trolls like Babloo are entitiled to their intolerant version of Jinnah. However Jinnah was neccessary for the economic survivial of Muslims. The Indian report on the economic placement of the current Muslim population in India drafted under Justice Rajider Sachar is proof itself of Jinnah’s foresight.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sachar%20report&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfsd.org%2Fsachar%2FleafletEnglish.pdf&ei=9WQAUNbBOa7z6wGV4LmRBw&usg=AFQjCNGAC0yL33Y83-mvmw7uYsPw10OUHg

    Morover Jinnah’s secular and tolerent beleifs will matter to Pakistanis once more when the current forces of intolerence will be overcome in Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • ASHOK
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:19PM

    Google why J N Mandal, the first Hindu Law Minister of Pakistan resigned within a short time.

    You guessed it right.

    Recommend

  • Asad
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:27PM

    Yet another reference to 11 August 1947!!! Pakistan is in a sorry state today because it did not turn out to be the Pakistan that Quaid envisioned. This was suppose to be the most tolerant state in the history of mankind because it was suppose to follow those lofty principles of Islam according to which our Prophet laid the foundations of the 1st islamic state and subsequently followed by the Caliphs. Had it all come true and had we not derailed from those targets, we would not be in this state.

    This comment is in agreement to the writer in respect to what is currently happening in Pakistan but not necessarily to the cause of it.

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:33PM

    The answer is right with us and we are looking for it everywhere else. As the Great Quaid himself said so many times. Islam itself offers the best balance of democracy and secularism. Pakistan has tried everything but IslamRecommend

  • gp65
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:36PM

    The August 11 1947 speech of Jinah visualizes a tolerant Pakistan. There are many other speeches which clearly did not visualize Hindu/Muslim amity. SOme of the events dring transfer of population also do not support the premise that Jinnah supported a tolerant Pakistan where people of every faith had equal rights.
    Any discussion about what Jinnah wanted cannot be settled now. Frankly, it should not even be relevant. Jinnah brought into being an independent Pakistan. It is now for Pakistani people living today to decide what type of Pakistan they want.
    - Do they want it to be tolerant or intolerant of iversity (religious, ethnic, linguistic, gender, sexual preference)
    - Do they want Pakistan to be a democracy, dictatrorship of Caliphate
    - Do they want Pakistan to be a security state or welfare state
    - Do they want Pakistanis to be proud of 5000 years of Indus valley culture or want to align the culture to Arabic culture

    These decisions need to be made in light of aspirations, desires and happiness of people living in Pakistan today regardless of what Jinnah wanted.

    After all many things in India are completely different from how Nehru wanted it but we cannot be frozen in time. India today should reflect the aspirations of Indians today and not be frozen in time. Pakistan needs to do the same.Recommend

  • yasir
    Jul 13, 2012 - 11:48PM

    Well the writer is right in saying that pakistanis needs to wake up and develop this virtue of tolerence but terming Quaid a secular is absolutely wrong. We need to understand that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and for Muslims. now its up to we Muslims to show the soft image of Islam which actually is the reality of Islam. we need to respect the beliefs of others, appreciate diversity and preach tolerance.

    Recommend

  • Raza Khan
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:03AM

    Jinnah’s Pakistan died the same day as Jinnah died!

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:10AM

    gp65

    Well said. People know what is right. Over 80% of people want the Holy Quran, not some man-made document that is not worth the paper it is written on, to be constitution of Pakistan. Why do people need to write and re-write a constitution every few years when Allah has granted us a manual for all times. Surprisingly while people get that, the elite don’t.

    Recommend

  • Hari Karnani
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:14AM

    When talking about Jinnah, we forget one important thing about him i.e., he was a very succesful lawyer in England. He won almost all his law suits in England. Loosing elections or not doing well in the polls in India could not have been good for him, specially when his ideological opponents were other lawyers like Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. To get over his bitter defeat he demanded a country of his own and did succeed. Another victory for the barrister Jinnah.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:18AM

    @GP65, Yasir
    You make good points.

    Recommend

  • Bigboy
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:21AM

    Most ‘liberal’ commentators talk about Jinnah’s August 11 speech & then proceed to blame Zia as the author has done. There is no proper explanation why things changed with Zia’s rule. Did the people change? Agree that Zia took over and rulers began to patronize a more puritanical Islam. But why did people follow this like sheep without thinking or is it because this was what they wanted? Was Pakistan more liberal when Bhutto passed a law against Ahmedis and cynically used Islam. Is it possible that people were already sympathetic to this puritanical Islam and did not need much prodding from Zia? Could it be that there was no turning point but a natural progression, to the present state, from 1947, in a state founded by a ‘Muslim’ League and not a ‘Minorities’ League. Possibly a logical outcome in a state where only a Muslim can be an occupier of high office. Why blame Zia alone when the environment itself was conducive to the emergence of a Zia and to the flourishing of his deeds? Jinnah’s speech probably needs to be taken with a pinch of salt

    Recommend

  • Maestro96
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:28AM

    It is easy to attack Jinnah without mentioning his stellar record as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. What changed that? One thing is for sure as is documented in Jaswant Singh’s book that Jinnah was pushed to seek the partition option by the stubborn Congress leaderships, especially Nehru.

    It is now a known historical fact that Jinnah even agreed to let go Pakistan as late as 1946 after Cripps mission, but Nehru would not not compromise.

    Pakistan has been highly unlucky because it has not had good leadership. In the scheme of things, the people of this nation perhaps did not deserve the freedom they got.

    Recommend

  • Kamran
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:45AM

    American citizen and a wife of TRAITOR is writing about Jinnah………………I can just laugh

    Recommend

  • elementary
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:57AM

    State has no business determining the the faith and religion of it’s people.

    PPP laid the foundation of intolerance and persecution of minorities by declaring Ahmadis Non muslim in 1974;Zia built upon this foundation and escalated it beyond all proportions.whilst supporters of PPP claim tolerance they are unable or unwilling to undo what their Quaid did in 1974.

    Recommend

  • unbeliever
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:57AM

    @Abbas from the US:

    Thank you Ms Isphaini for this very valid reminder.
    The Indian trolls like Babloo are entitiled to their intolerant version of Jinnah. However Jinnah was neccessary for the economic survivial of Muslims. The Indian report on the economic placement of the current Muslim population in India drafted under Justice Rajider Sachar is proof itself of Jinnah’s foresight.

    good that you brought the report:

    firstly, close to 60% of indian muslims live in states of UP, BIHAR, BENGAL AND ASSAM…

    and by all calculations they are laggards in all development parameters….

    so, muslims here, are suffering along with their hindu brother, that is why not much demonstrations by them, otherwise they are not known to be quite polite…..

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:58AM

    What is the diffrence between Muslim & Islam ?? And if we are muslims then basic laws of islam are same to shia & sunnis if not then miss farah can explains to us?? and jinnah was secular person but he got islamic country ??? and he didnot knew that we mainstream sunni islam muslims are mejority in india???

    Recommend

  • Abdulla diwana
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:00AM

    @ Kaalchaka; “Had there been no Pakistan, Muslims would indeed have been wiped out in India.”

    What is the latest count of Muslims in India? Will you call 180 million Indian Muslims as wiped out? More Indian Muslims are known world wide than Pakistani Muslims. Wait for another 10 years and you will see the contrast between Indian and Pakistani Muslims. How can you call Pakistan a safe place for Muslims when most of your leader live in exile ? Do you know a single Indian Muslim who had to leave India for his political belief? Recommend

  • Cosmo
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:05AM

    @kaalchakra:
    Right. Go and check in western countries, he’s know more as a communal person who sowed the seed of a great travesty in subcontinent. I wish he was alive today to see what a monster of concept he has given rise to. Many Pakistani’s believe that story of Pakistani would have shaped differently had Jinnah was to live longer. But I have absolutely no doubt that things would have been same or worse, coz the very basic idea that Jinnah had used to create a state was faulty. He should have avoided using religion as the basis of his political game plans.

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:09AM

    What ever happend or happening in pakistan peoples like u means feudals and army junta are responsible maam and shia are in pakistan enjoying the freedom and are in every department of govt and civil and thats a reason iranian shia are still coming and making passports and flying to canada.

    Recommend

  • Fareshteh.aslam
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:16AM

    All forget that Mr Jinnah was a lawyer; a very fine barrister, who knew the precise arguments to deploy in order to win his case(s). On 14th Aug 1947 he won his biggest.

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:19AM

    @Kamran
    and complaining too after what they did to us in last sixty yaers.

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:26AM

    @Kamran:
    I thought that US citizen particularly those (like Mansoor Ijaz) on record against Pakistan and its army is the hero of rightwing and PCO SC. Yes the author should not praise Mr. Jinnah otherwise she would be hated by the rightwing even more. On the other hand if she keeps spitting venom and hatred against Pakistan, she would become more credible in Pakistani courts.
    Regards,
    Mirza

    Recommend

  • Sadia
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:37AM

    Seriously,what has the current government done in this regard, even when the author was a member of national assembly?

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:39AM

    The problem is that your government teaches you a distorted history and hatred for non-Muslims in your schools’ text-books. This is where it all starts from. You need to read proper history and get over this delusion that your ancestors were Arabs. For a very small minority of Muslims in the sub-continent can trace their roots in Arab countries. Rest of the majority of Muslims were converts from other religions, mainly Hinduism. Your ancestors were Aryans and may be the natives of this soil. They lived happily with others in the Indus valley civilization for thousands of years. The ruins of Mohanjo Daro and Harappa is still present in Pakistan. You guys need to appreciate your Hindu past and learn to have peaceful co-existence with the Indians and the minorities of Pakistan. This is the only remedy for the serious problem that Pakistan facing today.

    Recommend

  • Rahul
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:42AM

    The speeches Jinnah made before August 14, 1947 were obviously not ‘secular’ in the true sense of the word, those speeches were to convince people that there was a need for a separate state for Muslims because he didn’t see a great future under a Hindu majority government. He most probably thought that a majority Hindu state would resemble what Pakistan of today is. After obtaibing a safe haven for Muslims he wanted his new state to function like a western style democracy that protected everyone’s personal freedoms. So the speeches for creating a Muslim state from within India and the speech on the kind of country he wanted Pakistan to be were clearly different and there is no ambiguity.

    Recommend

  • Awans
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:42AM

    This is never ending Debate and I think 30 years from now if i will click on ET then the same discussion will be going. The solution is simple.. We should name our Country from now as Confused Secular/ Islamic/Socialist/Communist Republic of Pakistan..And i think this is the only solution to the problem.

    Recommend

  • Indian Catholic
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:50AM

    @Babloo: If Pakistan offered to accept all Muslim and other minorities living in India, what % would migrate to Pakistan ?

    You know the strangest thing is that a number of Christians decided to move to Pakistan and a large number of Christians (primarily Goans) who worked in civil services in Karachi for the erstwhile Majesty’s govt. decided to stay put including those in the newly formed Pakistan Air Force. Their thinking was that a country created to protect the rights of minorities in a Hindi-majority nation would itself protect the rights of OTHER minorities. Jogender Nath Mandal for instance felt that he could steer dalits to a better deal.

    It saddens me that the people of Pakistan no longer remember this. Pakistan was envisioned to be a mecca for those who would not get rights in the newly-formed India.

    I do not wish to harp on current events. All of you know about the minarets that were demolished recently.

    However I wish for all Pakistani brethren to know that we stopped thinking a long, long time ago what kind of a nation Gandhi would have wished. The fact is that Gandhi was an idealist and while we can hope to come as close as we can to him, we all know we will fall way short. So instead we keep the idealistic view in mind but we try to do our own thing as best we can.Recommend

  • [email protected]
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:56AM

    @Hassan Ahmed:
    Well said Hassan. Qatar’s regime is a murderous regime that stifles its citizens of human rights just like their brethern regime in Saudi Arabia. The petro dollar has turned them into monsters who have not respect for humanity.

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:59AM

    As per Jawahar Lal Nehru, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a secular and straightforward man. Nehru wrote in his book ‘The Discovery of India’ in 1944 that “Mr Jinnah’s demand was based on a new theory he had recently propounded — that India consisted of two nations, Hindu and Muslim. Why only two I do not know, for if nationality was based on religion, then there many nations in India. Of two brothers one may be a Hindu, another a Muslim; they would belong to two different nations. These two nations existed in varying proportions in most of the villages of India. There were nations which had no boundaries; they overlapped. A Bengali Muslim and a Bengali Hindu living together, speaking the same language, and having much the same traditions and customs, belonged to different nations. All this was very difficult to grasp; it seemed a reversion to some medieval theory. What a nation is it is difficult to define… From Mr Jinnah’s two-nation theory developed the conception of Pakistan, or splitting up of India. That, of course, did not solve the problem of the ‘two nations’ for they were all over the place. But they gave body to a metaphysical conception. This again gave rise to a passionate reaction among many in favor of the unity of India. Mr Jinnah wanted the Congress to recognize publicly that the Muslim League was the sole representative organization of the Muslims of India, and the Congress should consider itself a purely Hindu organization. And that was not acceptable to the Congress. We concluded that that Mr Jinnah did not want any settlement with the Congress, nor did he want to commit himself in any way. He was satisfied in letting matters drift and in expecting that he could get more out of the British government this way.”

    Recommend

  • Uza Syed
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:01AM

    @Babloo: I’m afraid I gotta agree with Babloo here. Mr. Jinnah used Islam and incited Muslims in the name of their religion to ask for partition of India. He did that and once India was partioned and Pakistan created he changed his stance and started preaching whatever Farahnaz has quoted from Jinnah’s speeches.

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:03AM

    And Nehru was absolutely sure that the proposal to divide India was no solution to the backwardness of the country and that even Iqbal realized “its inherent danger and absurdity”. He wrote in his book ‘The Discovery of India’ in 1944 that “Pakistan, the proposal to divide India, however much it may appeal emotionally to some, is of course no solution for this backwardness, and it is much more likely to strengthen the hold of feudal elements for some time longer and delay the economic progress of the Muslims. Iqbal was one of the early advocates of Pakistan and yet he appears to have realized its inherent danger and absurdity. Edward Thompson has written that, in the course of a conversation, Iqbal told him that he had advocated Pakistan because of his position as president of the Muslim League session, but he felt sure that it would be injurious to India as a whole and to Muslims especially. Probably he had changed his mind, or he had not given much thought to the question previously, as it had assumed no importance then. His whole outlook on life does not fit in with the subsequent developments of the idea of Pakistan or division of India.”

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:14AM

    @Maestro96, You are blaming Nehru for partition here. Do you know what Nehru had to say on this issue and about Jinnah. Do you know how much Nehru, Gandhi and the Congress tried to persuade Jinnah to reach to a settlement with the Congress? To make you and all Pakistanis aware of Nehru’s views on this issue, I’m quoting Nehru from his book ‘The Discovery of India’ which he wrote in 1944. He says “When I was Congress president, I wrote to Mr Jinnah on several occasions and requested him to tell us exactly what he would like us to do. I asked him what the League wanted and what its definite objectives were. I also wanted to know what the grievances of the League were against the Congress governments. The idea was that we might clarify matters by correspondence and then discuss personally the important points that had arisen in it. Mr Jinnah sent me long replies but failed to enlighten me. It was extraordinary how he avoided telling me, or anyone else, exactly what he wanted or what the grievances of the League were. Repeatedly we exchanged letters and yet always there was the same vagueness and inconclusiveness and I could get nothing definite. This surprised me very much and made me feel a little helpless. It seemed as if Mr Jinnah did not want to commit himself in any way and was not at all eager for a settlement. Subsequently Gandhiji and others amongst us met Mr Jinnah, several times. They talked for hours but never got beyond a preliminary stage. Our proposal was that representatives of the Congress and the League should meet and discuss all their mutual problems. Mr Jinnah said that this could be done after we recognized publicly that the Muslim League was the sole representative organization of the Muslims of India, and the Congress should consider itself a purely Hindu organization. This created an obvious difficulty. We recognized of course the importance of the League and because of that we had approached it. But how could we ignore many other Muslim organizations in the country, some closely associated with us? Also there were large numbers of Muslims in the Congress itself and in our highest executive. To admit My Jinnah’s claim meant in effect to push out our old Muslim colleagues from the Congress and declare that the Congress was not open to them. It was to change the fundamental character of the Congress, and from a national organization open to all, convert it into a communal body. That was inconceivable for us. If the Congress had not already been there, we would have had to build up a new organization open to every Indian. “We could not understand Mr Jinnah’s insistence on this and refusal to discuss any other matter. Again we could only conclude that he did not want any settlement, nor did he want to commit himself in any way. He was satisfied in letting matters drift and in expecting that he could get more out of the British government this way.” I hope this will add to you knowledge. Thanks

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:20AM

    @Kaalchaka, “Had there been no Pakistan, Muslims would indeed have been wiped out in India.” Really? How ignorant you are? Do you really think that 25 crore Muslim in India today have been wiped out? Do you have any idea of how democracy works and how it is all about making compromises? Do you have any idea that Muslims in India today are political force and that they share power with their Hindu counterparts in the Indian government and Parliament? Do you know that no party in India today can form government without ensuring the support of powerful minority Muslim community. The fact is that Jinnah played into the hands of feudal elements and British who wanted to protect their own interests by demanding a separate Muslim state. If Jinnah had the slightest idea of the power and beauty of democracy, he’d have probably never demanded Pakistan for Muslims.

    Recommend

  • Jul 14, 2012 - 2:22AM

    @Babloo: Dear Friend,Your passion is greatly admired.A man without a passion is madigan with suit on,having said that Mr Jinnah was right and MKG was dead wrong as events since 1940 have proved beyond any reasonable doubt.We are oil and water,we can not mix.Lot of people find that hard to believe.Jinnah was second generation Koza Ismali Muslim,who today in Pakistan is hardly a considered a Muslim,Mirza is right if he had not died,he would have met the fate of Liquat Ali.Convert Hindu hate, Hindu/India deeply.It is very complex question and there is no easy answers. .Arabs like Indians but Pakistani can not stand Indians.Do you ever ask WHY?I wish I could provide you with easy answers.I was raised in Hyderabad,I have no malice for Islam,but I’m not naive either to think our religion can coexist,you will say 200 million live in India.They have no choice,they can not go to Pakistan,especially now,knowing what is going on there,they are caught like a deer in bright light not knowing where to run.I know,my Muslim friends trust me,and they know I have no malice and do not judge them,so they are honest with me.They are in no man’s land.I truly feel sorry for him.

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:23AM

    I have quoted Nehru from his book ‘The Discovery of India’. ThanksRecommend

  • john
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:37AM

    @kaalchakra:

    And, yet, India has today the world’s second largest Muslim population after Indonesia. It has had presidents, cabinet ministers, vice presidents, top-ranking officials, industrialists, etc. And, oh, did I mention the highly successful Muslim faces of Bollywood? Open India’s gates, and almost every Pakistani would want to go to India today. Ask any Muslims in India, if they would still want to go to Pakistan. The answer: a clear No thank you!!

    Recommend

  • Sapan Kapoor
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:37AM

    Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad had said to Nehru once that the latter was a patriot while Jinnah was a politician. I think this statement says it all.

    Recommend

  • omar
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:58AM

    “the wife of or beloved Hussain Haqqani”, ladies and gentlemen..!!!!!!

    Recommend

  • a_writer
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:01AM

    According to the Quaid, “…you will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus…..”
    There you go, Pakistan has achieved Jinnah’s vision – it took the forced conversion of Hindus, especially abducted young girls for ‘Hindus ceasing to be Hindus’ -Congratulations !!

    Recommend

  • ParvezM
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:06AM

    Pakistanis are very tolerant people who let elite operating out of London and Washington rule the country. Who let some people grab money thru illegal means and buy expensive homes in Dubai and London. Who let gun men kill freely all over the country. How much more tolerance you want.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:15AM

    @Maestro96: “t is now a known historical fact that Jinnah even agreed to let go Pakistan as late as 1946 after Cripps mission, but Nehru would not not compromise”

    and his conditin was that he should be the PM of the united India. Also that Muslim majority parts could decide to separate after 10 years if they chose. Obviously Patel and Nehru said that these decisions in parts make no sense.either separate now or commit to stay together. Also given that Congress (not just Hindus) had far greater support in united India, it did not make sense for Jinnah to be PM simply because ‘Muslims had been historically rulers’.

    So this whole 2 nation theory on the bais sof which he communalized Hindus and Muslims is something he was willing to forget as long as he got to become a PM..

    Recommend

  • Indo-American
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:39AM

    Pakistani liberals keep quoting this one speech of Jinnah and ignore many others where he speaks of Pakistan being run by Islamic principles. Perhaps he didn’t elucidate too much on those Islamic principles, but at least the principle was there.

    True Islam in any case cares for minorities in it’s own unique manner. It is lack of Islam rather than too much Islam that is the problem in Pakistan. Secondly, all of these issues of divisons between Rajput, Jat, Ahrar etc. are due to Hindu influences. If you read a book called Untouchables by Mulk Raj Anand, you will see the true face of caste discrimination that has been the name of Hindu society. Before Indians start abusing me, I would like to state that I am very much a Hindu of the Kshatriya caste, but against caste discrimination.

    The other issue is this – should a nation be held hostage to the founders vision? I ask this question not just from Pakistan, but also my country f origin India and the country of my citizenship the United States.

    It can be said the the “founder” of a modern freedom movement for India was Gandhi. However, he believed in some really strange things, restricting cities and glorifying villages, promoting handspun cloth instead of industrial production etc. I for one am glad India did not take a path of living in villages. I like toilets, running water, all the conveniences of city living.

    In the US, the founding father were slave owners who often slept with their slaves as a matter of right. Is that an example to be followed? No. The US constitution can be and has been amended multipe times.

    Similarly, it is up to Paistan to determine what it needs to be, Islamist, Secdular or something in between with the caveat that future generations of Pakistanis should also be free to shape Pakistan as they would like, but with peaceful and democratic means.

    Recommend

  • ParvezM
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:59AM

    Predictor preaching the sheep to stand still…Haha

    Recommend

  • Shahzad
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:10AM

    Mr Jinnah was a Muslim but a very modern educated one . But he practised what he preached and even Indian historians have conceded that Nehru drove him to the two nation theory . Our present motley lot should also understand that he was self made man who was one of the highest tax payers in India. The picture you see of him in the Government Offices did not depict his true self. The maulvi element in our society who are responsible to a large extent for this intolerance, like to paint him as a devout Muslim , well he was not. During his lifetime these people hated him as they hated Iqbal the poet and referred to him as kafir e azam.

    It was his integrity and statesmanship which is absent in most populist leaders from both sides of the divide.compare his financial integrity with the present lot left , right or middle wing , religious or those whom they call liberal. Also see his daughter Dina and compare to our royal sons daughters.

    I have many photographs of him but my favourite is with him sitting in the garden with his two dogs smoking a cigarette very different to what are history books have made him. Perhaps to understand what the writer is referring to about history suffice it to say the Book “murder of history ” by KK Aziz is recommended.

    Recommend

  • Ali
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:17AM

    Please stop quoting selective speeches. Look at the countless other public addresses and quotes where Jinnah is a staunch Islamist. This is universal problem with all politicians flip flopping on issues and using references as suitable for the need of the time. This is all we need now, an analysis from a person who should not even be a member of any foreign government office as she has taken the oath of allegiance to America.

    So Ms. Ispahani I recommend that you go let go and back off now. Have some dignity and stop being the two timing politician promoting your party’s own agenda and your personal motives. You should be ashamed of yourself not only are you not a good Pakistani or a good American, you are not even a good human being period.

    Recommend

  • Shahzad
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:17AM

    @omar:
    A person should be judged , if at all on the basis of what they say not who they are. I think that is how an educated discourse transpires .

    Recommend

  • Akbar
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:49AM

    @Munawar Ali Shah:
    Ironically which is called secular nation? India or Pakistan. Pakistanis just seem to be in terrible confusion as to what they want? religion or Pakistan!! So far it is the islamists that have won not Pakistan. When the contest comes with India- islam comes to mind but not Pakistan when it comes to Pakistan-minorities are targetted. Jinnah must be congratulated for removing that population from India- that gave more importance to religion over nation and society well being. No wonder he saved modern India. ET has great articles that state what needs to be done for Pakistan but the truth is problem is in the root. Until that is tackled, Bhuttos or Imran Khans will not save Pakistan. To tacke that you have to tackle religion first.

    Recommend

  • Char Latan
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:52AM

    Thank for a generally thoughtful discussion guys.

    I am intrigued at Kaalchakra’s endorsement of a Pakistan based on Koranic principles or “the manual” as he calls it. Given the ideological quagmire that Pakistan is in today, that could very well be one of the way outs as it seeks to redefine its identity. However, no modern state exists today based purely on any holy book. Furthermore, holy books are notorious for how much they leave open to interpretation by us mere mortals which gives rise to an oppression by the more righteous. Furthermore still, how would such a country – especially one without any significant natural resources like oil – interact and deal with the rest of the world which is headed in a completely different directions. Would a new Koran-based Pakistan be jumping from the saucepan to the fire?

    Just food for thought.

    Recommend

  • Shahzad
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:07AM

    @john:
    I beg to differ , I have many Indian friends who love to visit Lahore and do so whenever they have an opportunity , similarly on my one visit to Delhi where I went as part of a golf team I found my hosts and other friends opened their homes to me as I have never seen an Arab do in all my visits to the middle east. This is so because culturally we are closer to India then to Arabs with whom we share a religion however hardly any culture. They don’t even play cricket.

    Recommend

  • Rangacharya Kulakarni
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:14AM

    Dear Indian and Pakistani brothers,

    Can I remind you again and again Mr Jinnah wanted a separate homeland for muslims. He never advocated Islamic state? Period. All these quotes and unquotes do not make any sense to me.

    Recommend

  • Feroz
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:52AM

    Selective speeches cannot make an individual communal or secular. Jinnah miscalculated badly by calling for a separate country for Muslims. His demands were political but his call was communal. His hope for a secular constitution were dashed and unfortunately for him the land he left delivered on its promises. Because of him the people of Indian sub continent got communalised and World citizens too disliked his idea, why was proved by events over the subsequent decades. When you use Religion for narrow political ends the results are most likely to prove devastating.
    A vision that results in the loss of a million lives accompanied by brutal violence is either very naive or very stupid. The faster South Asia forgets about Jinnah and starts working on more pressing problems, the closer we can get to an idealistic future.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Jul 14, 2012 - 7:08AM

    @unbeliever:
    firstly, close to 60% of indian muslims live in states of UP, BIHAR, BENGAL AND ASSAM…

    You did raise a valid point,but you should also know for a fact that the Per Capita Income of a Gujarati Muslim is more than a Gujarati Hindu and most of the South Indian muslims,like the Kerala Muslims,Mangloreans better in socio-economic conditions
    Do you know the reason why?
    Most of the South Indian muslims and majority of Hindus and christians have just 2 kids per family.whereas in 1970s,these UP,Bihar,Bengal muslims were the first to protest against the family planning proposed by govt using “Allah deta hai” principle
    Most of these families have atleast 5 kids per household.As they’re poor,most of them study in Madrassa.I dont think in the current world,madrassa education will be sufficient for a person to secure job.
    Azim Premji,a muslim multimillionaire,owns a software company having more than 1 lakh people.Just ask him,if he wants a State board educated non-muslim or a madrassa educated muslim.

    Recommend

  • Arpit from US
    Jul 14, 2012 - 7:30AM

    @Abbas from the US: it will matter only when you will have minorities left in Pakistan. The minorities have reduced from 20% in 1947 to 2-3% today. What tolerant society you are talking about? Once the minorities are wiped out these hate monger will go after people of different communities with Islam. We all see that happening with Shia massacre. Atleast India is making effort in giving muslims better representation through sanchar report. Also muslim communities in India were mostly business class. They didn’t come forward much in education (I can tell you from my own experience). They have all the facilities which an average Indian has and its onto them to make best use of it. Religion play very little role in work environment (its very personal).

    Now ask the same question for Pakistan? What has it done to its citizen. Forcefully convert, destroy their places of worship, treat them as second grade citizens, forced abductions and no support from government. Is this how you want your Pakistan?

    Recommend

  • Diogenes
    Jul 14, 2012 - 8:14AM

    There’s not really much to be intrigued about kaalchakra. He’s an Indian troll and tries to get a rise out of naiive Indians by posing as a Pakistani and saying things that are ludicrous and designed to inflame debate.

    Recommend

  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Jul 14, 2012 - 8:30AM

    Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest benefactor of Hindus in modern times, if he was not a Hindu in disguise.
    -Girilal Jain

    Recommend

  • Sultan Khan
    Jul 14, 2012 - 8:31AM

    I think instead of wasting our time on the past happenings we should focus on the present. Though Jinnah and Gandhi shall always be remembered as great sons of the sub-continent more for their personal characters and craving for the common good than their political vision yet much water has flown under the bridge. The present generation cannot be made hostage to what they thought, said and planned. Every generation has a right to choose what it thinks best for it and the best way to choose is through democracy.

    Recommend

  • Altaf Hussain, Mumbai
    Jul 14, 2012 - 9:07AM

    @Amjad:
    Wah bhai wah!. Since when has Qatar become a welfare state and run beautifully? Since when has ordinary Qatari muslims been treated on par? Qatar is one of the most retrogate states on earth. Regarding its wealth, who told you that the Emir had a role to play in its oil reserve? Who told you that Qatar treats its muslim citizenry with respect? You must be one of those who think it is a privilege to be born in a muslim family and not a matter of chance.

    Recommend

  • QASIM
    Jul 14, 2012 - 10:15AM

    Good views.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Jul 14, 2012 - 10:29AM

    Interesting debate in the comments section on a rather worn-out-out subject. Jinnah did not feel that Muslims could live as a minority in India; he asked for a separate country and he got it. He may not have had the foresight to see the monster he unleashed, but then there is no nation that has consistently followed in its tallest leader’s footsteps – Gandhi, Lenin and Mao are also now found mainly in political history books and comments pages like these. Jinnah cannot be characterized as secular as most of his time (at least post 1936) was spent in highlighting the differences between Hindus and Muslims (he was smart enough to understand that the Congress leaders would take care of the freedom struggle part – and so getting rid of the British was not really his biggest concern); he may have been less orthodox than other muslims, which is not quite the same thing. The fact that the Aug 11 speech is the only one that you can come up with to confirm Jinnah’s secular credentials should automatically prove that it is an outlier – yet another case of the exception proving the rule.

    Recommend

  • A Bhatti
    Jul 14, 2012 - 10:34AM

    @Abdulla diwana:
    Yes Abdullah, you are forgetting the history of Kashmir. Muslim leaders don’t leave India because either they are killed or not given passports to travel abroad. Read this story of a Muslim leader in Kashmir – The mass graves of Kashmir http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/09/mass-graves-of-kashmir?CMP=twt_gu

    Recommend

  • vasan
    Jul 14, 2012 - 10:53AM

    I can only conclude that Religion is not an issue in India, But in Pakistan that is the only issue they care.

    Recommend

  • Muhammad
    Jul 14, 2012 - 11:11AM

    Hypernationalism destroys a persons ability to think rationally and converts him into a fascist. Just look at what PTI trolls are doing to people with different opinion than theirs to see it in action.

    Recommend

  • Jpy
    Jul 14, 2012 - 11:37AM

    @kaalchakra:
    That is exactly your Hafiz Saeed & other mullas are trying to establish. Dont worry your dream will be achieved very soon after 2014

    Recommend

  • Jpy
    Jul 14, 2012 - 11:45AM

    It was proved by history that 2 nation theory of Jinnah was wrong in 1971 after the formation of Bangladesh.

    Recommend

  • C V R Bharati
    Jul 14, 2012 - 11:50AM

    @Akbar:
    “Jinnah must be congratulated for removing that population from India- that gave more importance to religion over nation and society well being. No wonder he saved modern India.” “—————– the truth is problem is in the root” Excellant observation. You have hit the nail on its head.

    Recommend

  • Was A Pakistani
    Jul 14, 2012 - 11:58AM

    There was contradiction in Jinnah’s message and that is the reason for today’s mess. I dont think Pakistan was ever formed on any principle other than opportunitism and that is what we see today. What to talk of minorities there is no one who has any rights other than the one’s who have power in any form. It is the biggest mistake of history to make a country called Pakistan where every individual has suffered in some form. Dont expect good till you have the strength to accept mistakes and undo it.

    Recommend

  • Prabhash
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:01PM

    Friends, I have gone through most of the comments posted over here and came to conclusion that neither Mr. Jinnah nor Mr. Nehru (nor any leader at that time) were visionaries. Rather they were, advocates turned politicians who would like to meet their ‘own political goals’ (not aligned with the welfare or future of any community/country). It was sheer bad luck for people of subcontinent that we had such leaders at the helm when it mattered the most. Their shortsightedness, created three countries and none of these countries (even after 65 years) have reached to level of pre-British level. What leaders failed to visualise at that time was,the country ( country of 1945) has to be united, people of this part of the world have to live together, come what may, that would have been their great contribution to the future generations. If any group or section had issues with this, to the extent of violent disapproval to this idea. Then it was better to have a short civil war. Because, at the end when things would have cooled down, people would go back to their normal businesses and the future generations would have lauded the leaders for this act. Quite a similar example, was American Civil war. But they had Abraham Lincoln and we had ‘none’ to match his ‘vision’. It was farsightedness of Lincoln to keep USA united, got US where it is today. Leaders have to think beyond current situation, think ahead. Why we can’t live together belonging to any religion or sect, when we look alike, we share same cultural legacy, have almost similar psyche as well ! How come people who look differently (Blacks and Whites) and act differently can live in harmony in USA? Are we not so capable of doing the same in this part of the world? The same, Indians and Pakistanis will live together ..trust each other … spend time with each other… when they are in an alien land (be it US, UK, etc). Please, let’s move ahead. And definitely not close the doors and windows for any thought/idea coming from the other side of the border as its absence will breed only one thought of line and in due course of time it will not be receptive to the ‘other view’.

    Recommend

  • Jpy
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:06PM

    @Sapan Kapoor:
    Very well said

    Recommend

  • murad
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:16PM

    Since Lady Isphanee is a US national too would like her to write something about ”Visualising a Shareef America” really gone love that after all she has taken an oath to work for the better America and they badly need an Advisor who can teach them how to behave in this civilized world which of course they claim to be the Father of……

    Recommend

  • unbeliever
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:37PM

    @1984:

    i know very well..since i hail from a city called SULTANPUR in UP, a 2 hour drive from ayyodhya, what i am speaking, is based on my personal observation(however flawed) and know it for sure that muslims do have some genuine grievances, that includes lack of literacy, awareness and a severe lacking in modern outlook….
    however, they cannot single out hindus for whatever mess they are in….

    infact, the quality of leadership they produced in india, after migration of muhajirs, was substandard….which really never cared for their problems….. the only thing their leaders kept worried about was their own position, and priviliges….also congress being pseudo-secularist party was content in using muslims as a cattle for it’s purposes, rather than enacting some really forward moving laws(case of shahbano, when a progressive muslim arif khan was snubbed in favour of mullahs)….
    .and all along muslims thought that they were being protected….infact, if we consider india from 1947 to 89, not much protests were there which raised the point that muslims were lagging…..afterall, in that era a maximum a graduate would become was clerk, by paying bribes..so muslims never cared about education, and the new found job opportunities in arabian peninsula only bolstered their confidence, and they did what they were content doing…..like working as mechanic, auto driver, tailor, scrap dealer: and in it they made a fortune compared to the clerks or constables, even including their under-the-table incomes….

    then came watershed moment of 1991, when license raj was dismantled…….the nature of economy changes all of a sudden, form being birds in cage, to a bird left open to fend for itself…..and as it happens, in such cases, only the birds with right set of wings make hay, while the others to accustomed to living in cage, just fiddle and complain……..the wing here was education, and the hindus had upper hand, without any doubt….they made a fortune, while muslims could only look at the fast changing scenario………..

    Recommend

  • Arifq
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:49PM

    Jinnah as the politician transitioned from being Congress supporter to Muslim League leader promoting dominion status to Muslim leader and then finally Statesman espousing a Secular country where all citizens have equal rights irrespective of their caste or religion.

    That was Jinnah, he died in 1948, end of an era. What followed is known to all of us, decisions were made that do not appeal to some but are supported and engineered by others. Personally, I support Farahnaz and the secular Jinnah, but also acknowledges the changed ground reality, that this is not Jinnah’s Pakistan. Yes, I and many other Pakistanis can try to bring back Jinnah ideals as we k ow them and thus the debate.

    Recommend

  • kafeel
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:51PM

    @Abdulla diwana:
    my friend,conditions of muslims in india is worse than even dalits as is provided you reports.and see,you cannot massacare 180 million ppl anywhere in the world its not possible,yes you can keep them as subordinate citizens that what india exactly does.

    Recommend

  • Tony Singh
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:56PM

    @Amjad:
    If Qatar did not have oil wealth, it would not stand a chance to be even a developing country. On the other hand, it would be like Somalia or Sudan.

    Recommend

  • kafeel
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:59PM

    @Cosmo:
    you are making comments on loose air.jinnah is known everywhere known to be the most liberal politician to have emerged from sub continent,even your own politicians acknowledge.

    Recommend

  • Obaid Ullah Khan
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:02PM

    All the comments are subjecting and criticizing the role of Jinnah, while the main problem started in 1974 when ZAB took first step in making this country a theocracy by declaring Ahmadies as non muslims through constitution. It was the first step to pollute the constitution and promoting the intolerance in this country. Supporting a good cause in unjustified manner is not a good attitude as well. Why PPP is not taking actions to pull out the dog from the well rather than taking the water buckets to make it clean. They are just doing and using the parliament to sustain their rule. What kind of morality is this that you represent a government and then criticizing a past ruler for doing wrong things and not doing anything good by yourself while have power to amend the constitution. Stop this hypocrisy that has already weakened our civil society and has strengthened the hands of radical elements and mullahs. Recommend

  • Mr Asia
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:21PM

    Asim agrees with Farahnaz and misses the good old days.

    Recommend

  • R.A
    Jul 14, 2012 - 1:43PM

    A VISION FAR FAR AWAY
    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:06PM

    @Babloo:

    One of the many reasons Mr. Jinnah demanded Pakistan for Muslims is given in this “Report of Amnesty International for year 2012″. Here is some excerpts from the report.

    Jammu and Kashmir

    “Impunity prevailed for violations in Kashmir, including unlawful killings, torture and the disappearance of thousands of people since 1989 during the armed conflict there. A majority of the killings of more than 100 youths by the security forces during protests in 2010 also went unpunished.

    In March, 15 years after the murder of human rights lawyer Jaleel Andrabi, the state authorities urged the federal government to extradite Major Avtar Singh, charged with the killing, from the USA to face trial in a Srinagar court. The federal authorities had yet to respond.

    In September, the state human rights commission identified over 2,700 unmarked graves in north Kashmir. Despite the local police’s claims that these contained bodies of “unidentified militants”, the commission identified 574 bodies as those of disappeared locals and asked the state authorities to use DNA profiling and other forensic techniques to identify the remaining bodies. The authorities had yet to act on this recommendation.”

    Recommend

  • Shahzad
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:06PM

    @Yuri Kondratyuk:
    Sorry can you explain this comment please

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:14PM

    Here is the second reason among many others that Mr. Jinnah demanded a separate home land for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Read the report by the “Human Rights Watch” published on 24 February 2012. Here is the opening paragraph of the repor.

    India: A Decade on, Gujarat Justice Incomplete

    “Authorities in India’s Gujarat state are subverting justice, protecting perpetrators, and intimidating those promoting accountability 10 years after the anti-Muslim riots that killed nearly 2,000 people, Human Rights Watch said today. The state government has resisted Supreme Court orders to prosecute those responsible for the carnage and has failed to provide most survivors with compensation….”

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:16PM

    Cosmo

    You don’t have to take kafeel’s word for it. Jaswant Singh who is head of Hindu right-wing RSS has acknowledged that Jinnah was more secular than Nehru and Gandhi.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:21PM

    @Babloo:

    Here is a third reason why Mr. Jinnah demanded Pakistan as made crystal clear by this report of Human Rights Watch India: Communal Violence and the Denial of Justice. Below is the “Summary of Findings” section of the report.

    “The violence in Bombay emerged out of an organized and systematic ideological campaign directed primarily against India’s Muslim minority which culminated in the attacks of December 1992 and January 1993. On December 6, 1992, a sixteenth-century mosque in Ayodhya, in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh was demolished. During the preceding months, a movement of political parties, religious groups, and cultural organizations, including the BJP, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Shiv Sena,[5] had called for the construction of a temple on the site of the mosque as an integral move in their struggle for Hindutva, or Hindu rule. Over 150,000 supporters known as kar sevaks (voluntary workers)[6] converged on Ayodhya, where they attacked the three-domed mosque with hammers and pick-axes and reduced it to rubble. The incident was widely covered by the Indian and international press; in fact, reporters were among those attacked by the kar sevaks. Although the Uttar Pradesh government and the national government of India had adequate warning about the intentions of the kar sevaks, they did not attempt to prevent the destruction of the Babur mosque at Ayodhya.[7] As the mosque was being destroyed local police from Ayodhya as well as the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC, the Uttar Pradesh state police) stood by. During the following hours, kar sevaks rampaged through Ayodhya’s Muslim neighborhoods, violently attacked Muslims, looted their shops, and set fire to their homes. Local police and the PAC neither protected Ayodhya’s Muslims nor stopped those who perpetrated the violence. National police forces intervened only after the mosque had been destroyed and the local Muslim population had suffered widespread violence.”

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:24PM

    @kaalchakra:
    As far as I know, Jaswant Singh is not even an RSS member, let alone its head; by making such outlandish claims, you lose your credibility for the entire comment, the rest of which was correct. You could have easily said instead that he was a previous Finance/ External Affairs Minister in the last BJP govt in India who felt that Jinnah was secular – that would have been an accurate statement.

    Recommend

  • antanu g
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:49PM

    @Amjad:
    Bombay was fixed into two nation theory by Brita and nehru. west was aware of our potential to become a powerful nation. today India would have had 1700million population…almost half of it Muslims. there would have been in every field with equal opportunity in politics and economy resulting in peace and progress.West would never allow this and as such Pakistan was created with Kashmir advanced bone of contention resulting in 60 years of strife. think of it

    Recommend

  • Was A Pakistani
    Jul 14, 2012 - 2:58PM

    @murad:
    So an american cant comment on pakistan? Only pakistanis can? What kind of world pakistanis envisage? Stop commenting on others too…. alot of countries we condemn for being anti muslim provide more freedom than what you and i have in pakistan

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:00PM

    BlackJack, his association with RSS may be incorrect. From what I recall, he was part of a Hindu extremist party which is why he was made the External Affairs Minister of India.

    Even if the man was not RSS head and belonged to some other Hindu extremist group (how many such groups are there?), his elevation to high ranks speaks volumes of India. This is exactly what Jinnah had foreseen.

    Recommend

  • Jul 14, 2012 - 3:16PM

    The first requirement of citizenship is that person must have unquestionable loyality to the country. Any Citizen of state who request support from another state in his individual capacity is traitor. Every nation and specially your Uncle SAM serves Capital Punishment to such Individuals. Recommend

  • Shadowliner
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:17PM

    Pakistan was created by the Muslim landowning elite which was afraid of losing its large estates in an undivided independent India. The Congress had begun to articulate its desire to implement land reform and end zamindari after independence. Large Muslim landowners in Punjab and elsewhere therefore wholeheartedly supported MA Jinnah’s move to cynically exploit people’s religious sentiments for political and economic gain. It was a sound decision, because after independence, India did receive radical land reforms that empowered the long suffering kisan. In Pakistan, no such thing happened. The status quo was maintained and was strengthened.

    It wasn’t the first time in history when religion was used as a tool to secure the interests of the elite, and as we have seen since 1947, not the last, not by far.

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:18PM

    With one leg in America and the other in Pakistan, shedding crocodile tears comes across as blatant bad taste. What adds insult to injury is that your political party has been in power now coming on to five years and the plight of the people has got worse while people of your ilk have prospered,

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:22PM

    antanu g

    As always you highlight truths that Indians generally conceal – Nehru played a decisive role in creating and popularizing the Two-Nation Theory, which the Great Quaid, despite his years of close association with the Congress, simply could not ignore. At a point it became obvious to the Quaid that Nehru had no interests other than promoting Hindus. In fact, Nehru often worked against Muslims.

    I wish truthful and courageous people like you and nandita had greater voice in India …

    Recommend

  • observer
    Jul 14, 2012 - 3:42PM

    @antanu G

    West would never allow this and as such Pakistan was created with Kashmir advanced bone of contention resulting in 60 years of strife. think of it

    And pray, Why did oh, so reasonable Muslims fall for it?

    And, having realised this why don’t they undo it? Instead they become the doormat of the wicked West via CENTO, SEATO, Afghan Jihad and WOT.

    Think of that too.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Jul 14, 2012 - 4:03PM

    @kaalchakra:
    My friend, I know that I cannot reason with you, but will still try. There are quite a few narrow-minded organizations (both Hindu and Muslim) in India, and a number have a common philosophical fountainhead – the Hindu units are mostly part of the Sangh Parivar while the Muslim units have a Deoband connection; this does not mean that everyone who is influenced by parts of the ideology of these organizations become an extremist. Extremism and political ambitions rarely go hand-in-hand in India because you cannot cater to a fringe element and still win elections – that level of polarization does not exist. However, across the world, you will find that most political formations with a nationalist ideology are traditionally right-of-centre, and the BJP is no different – but they are not extremists. I know this will not change your views in the least.

    Recommend

  • Jeffmahagaonvi
    Jul 14, 2012 - 4:04PM

    Thank you Farahnaz Ispahani for an excellent article & timely reminder
    to us all. Every politics interested person know that Mr. M A Jinnah
    was one of the most liberal and secular politician of his time.
    The problem is not with the common man thinking, but the public opinion
    is influenced by the mullahas, bazaries and people who arebecoming rich and
    new elite by meams of corruption in the country.
    They exploit the ignorant people in the name of Islam, ghairat, secterianism…
    We are living in 21century world and we have to obey the norms and laws
    of the day. Otherwise the result will be very horrible for us and coming
    generation.
    If we want to live in peace, progress & prosperity, then we have to change
    our brutal, corrupt and illogical mindset.
    Live with love-Let democracy work

    Recommend

  • fayyaz Mughal
    Jul 14, 2012 - 4:09PM

    I believe Pakistan people are reasonable and well meaning. It has contradictions and I believe will be resolved in time. It is an irony that democracy was not allowed for a long time. Political leadership carries lots of negativity. We easily see it is corrupt face, because it is accountable to us. Can we ask questions to military leadership? Isn’t it the irony of a system that judiciary of Pakistan never questioned a military rule. It always validated them. We in India have corrupt leaders; we’ll devise ways to set them right. It will take time. The role of military is to defend the country. Why did court allow military officers to appear in court over ruling civilian Government? The first job is to keep army under civil rule. If the humanity has to move forward please fight against poverty, illiteracy, gender bias, disease etc. A healthy, educated and well informed society will always take right decisions.

    Recommend

  • Menon
    Jul 14, 2012 - 4:34PM

    @kaalchakra:

    “The Great Quaid is a universally beloved figure” – The truth not even close to your statement.

    why? Because it is created using rewritten history as the author points out. Indeed, she only brings up the good side. Jinnah, due to his ill health and deteriorating health right before the partition and right after the partition was not really in control, was in name only. When he saw the monster he has created, he regretted the partition and wanted make Pakistan part of an Indian federation which Nehru rebuffed and rumored to have said the following:

    As early as 1948 prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru stated: “If today by any chance I were offered the reunion of India and Pakistan, I would decline it for obvious reasons. I do not want to carry the burden of Pakistan’s great problems.

    If want more information read: Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann. May be available where you live!

    This is the type of hero worship permeating the subcontinent that is causing the significant problems it is facing today.

    Recommend

  • MAK
    Jul 14, 2012 - 4:34PM

    Whatever was the purpose and the intention of creating Pakistan has horribly went wrong. One of the reasons of creating Pakistan was to protect muslims from getting wipped off from what one understand from the many comments in this column. In present day Pakistan what actually happening is, muslims wiping off muslims in a hurried manner. No matter what Pakistanis say, hum yeh hai, hum woh hai, hum yeh kardengay, hum woh kardengay, first save yourself from your own citizens and then talk about hum yeh hai, hum woh hai.

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 14, 2012 - 4:55PM

    Good lawyer can not be a good leader its explains every thing.

    Recommend

  • Jul 14, 2012 - 5:00PM

    The liberal Muslim culture did exist at time of independence, despite two nation theory.As leadership passed from the traditional elite represented by Jinnah and Iqbal to feudal, then military, then mulla/fauji the liberal embers died down.There is some revival of liberal culture as seen in music but the middle class is so down and out both economically and intellectually that Pakistan will take a long time to come up to even Indian and Bangladesh standards.

    Recommend

  • Abdulla diwana
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:08PM

    @Akbar : “Jinnah must be congratulated for removing that population from India- that gave more importance to religion over nation and society well being. No wonder he saved modern India” Correct. However, There were many Muslims in present day Pakistan who wanted to be part of India (Khan Abdul Gaffar’s party never supported the formation of Pakistan). They have been condemned to live with Jinnahites for ever. Pakistan became a mixture of Jinnahtes and Non-Jinnahites who are now fighting each other.

    Recommend

  • An indian muslim
    Jul 14, 2012 - 5:25PM

    My grandparents didnt migrate to Pakistan precisely because they didn’t believe a word of what Jinnah was saying. In fact, people don’t realize today that a vast majority of subcontinental Muslims didn’t believe in jinnah’s theory that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations when most of us know that our culture is purely indian, our ethnicity is purely indian (not withstanding some random claims of Arab origin). Only our religion is Islam. The fact that Jinnah whose grandparents were Gujarati Hindu bhatias suddenly claimed that he and his fellow muslims were fundamentally different from hindus didn’t sit well with my grandfather who was steeped in Sufi mystic tradition. And he saw the two nation theory was just a power grabbing exercise on the part of rich indian Muslims who didn’t want to loose their wealth and power in a democratic India. (good move for them since the rich landowners did loose their ancestral property whether they are Hindus or Muslims when india instituted land reforms that Pakistan has never done).

    Recommend

  • Jul 14, 2012 - 5:28PM

    Dear author after reading most of the comments I have concluded that you have already lost ground. Most of comments indicate that people have been deeply radicalised and no one is going to understand where are they heading or what are you saying.
    One commentator quotes “Mr Jinnah in his presidential address to the League, in April 1941, said, in a united India ‘Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence.’ He said Pakistan was essential ‘to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country.’
    Truth is nothing like this happened and more Muslims live in India then in Pakistan. Wish India and Pakistan both get rid of this Religion phobia.

    Recommend

  • vivek ruparel
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:22PM

    @kaalchakra:
    so why do u all celebrate the 1000 years of oppression and genocide of hindus by invaders delhi sultanate and mughals. It was nothing but personal greed and paranoia. Today Hindus in India were the main supporters for a Muslim Scientist to become President. Even ur artists come to India 2 work. proves who had the mindset to oppress and who was tolerant clearly.

    Recommend

  • Arya
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:37PM

    “We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles”.(MA Jinnah 1946, at Islamia College). No doubt, the world calls Pakistan, an Islamic Laboratory. Things can go wrong in laboratories, some time horribly. Luckily for Bangladeshis, they got separated during one such wrong experiment. Only tangible success that can be attributed to this lab is the successful testing of Islamic Bomb.

    Recommend

  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:49PM

    @Shahzad:
    In undivided India, Hafeez Sayeed would have been an Indian citizen.
    Need to say more?

    Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jul 14, 2012 - 6:59PM

    BlackJack

    What can I or anyone else say to the claim that BJP are not extremists? Even their most ‘liberal’ leaders (remember Bajpey?) are widely known and described as “Hitlers” in India ITSELF, even if you ignore what Pakistanis think of them. Not even the most extreme fringe groups in Pakistan have such a terrible reputation for killing people and discriminating against them.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 14, 2012 - 7:22PM

    @An Indian muslim, excellent and very relevant observation.

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 14, 2012 - 7:25PM

    Who is pakistan PPP, MLN, MQM, ANP, JI, ARMY, and what they did for us the peoples of pakistan?????? in last seven decades……..Recommend

  • Safi
    Jul 14, 2012 - 7:28PM

    If Hindu had to cease to be an Hindu and Muslim a Muslim and all were to be nation of one land, it could well have been done in an Indian federation and perhaps this was what Congress and stalwarts of it like Maulana Azad were trying to convince Jinnah. the words of Jinnah definitely suggest that he wanted a secular state, and this is what India today is. Then where stood his support for an ideology which was based on Islam? The Muslim interests could well be safeguarded under Cabinet Mission Plan and a huge massacre of various Indian communities could have been averted.

    Recommend

  • Kailash
    Jul 14, 2012 - 7:33PM

    @kaalchakra:
    But u do realize in India, muslim population has risen from 5% at independence to 12% today? So is it because of Hindus’ massacre of Muslims? Where as in in Bangladesh, Hindu population has gone down to 5% from 35% in just 30+ yrs. and talking of Pakistan it has come down to I guess 1% from around 20%. So just apply ur civil sense if u have any. Who is saint here?

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 14, 2012 - 8:34PM

    After 1984 riots and killings of sikhs in and around Dehli i think Mr jinnah is angel to us.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Jul 14, 2012 - 9:00PM

    @kafeel:
    my friend,conditions of muslims in india is worse than even dalits as is provided you reports.

    Please read my previous comment,I;ve said the reason why Muslims in India are backward…Muslims were in upper hand in India for 300 yrs before British rule,whereas Dalits were oppressed for 5000 yrs..
    But now,Dalits have progressed more than muslims…How??
    First,they limited their children to 2 per family, embraced modern education instead of madrassa education and stopped being driven by their leaders….
    You cannot blame the govt for you being lazy and others are overtaking you…Just get up and run if you want to compete in this competitive world..or else you will get perished by Darwin’s theory

    Recommend

  • F Khan
    Jul 14, 2012 - 9:17PM

    You are the government….change the textbooks…..

    Recommend

  • Ibrahim
    Jul 14, 2012 - 9:46PM

    Madam,
    Please do not talk down to us we are sick of you liberals lecturing us.

    Recommend

  • Hafeez ur Rehman
    Jul 14, 2012 - 10:38PM

    why you was not writing something when all the chapter of jahad is eliminated from our Islamiat text books as desired by your master usaRecommend

  • Plal
    Jul 14, 2012 - 11:36PM

    Unfortunately, Appointment of Pakistan’s first law minister a Hindu — Jogendra Nath Mandal proved to be a tokenism as he resigned on October 8, 1950 and moved to India.Excerpt from the article http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C05%5C04%5Cstory4-5-2011pg3_2 “Mandal’s resignation letter is a must read for all those who want to understand where, how and when Pakistan went wrong and who started it all. Most horrifying are the details of the excesses against innocent Hindu men and women by the early rulers and the army of Pakistan as recorded by Mandal. At one point, he notes that the only reason the abduction and rape of Hindu girls in East Pakistan had reduced to a certain extent was that no caste Hindu girl between the age of 12 and 30 had been left in the province by then.”

    Recommend

  • Jul 14, 2012 - 11:58PM

    @Indian Catholic: Joginder Nath mandal was Right?He ran to India in the cloth he was wearing?We as a people,Indians or Pakistani,Hindu or Muslims saw after second world War an opportunity to grab power and easy money,They saw it all right,did they loot?they have not stopped yet,The fight in Pakistan is to get to 2013 and run to West so that ill gotten money is never recovered.I give credit to Pakistan,at least their S.C. tried,In india they have not even gotten to first base(baseball)Dear we are all cut from the same cloth,’Chatey -Bathey.No future,run before flood gate of chaos decent.

    Recommend

  • Jul 15, 2012 - 12:15AM

    @BlackJack: But I will try all the same,in losing cause,no one can set reversechakra ‘s wheel right not even the SUPERMAN,he tried to turn the kalchakra of Earth by rotating the Earth backword in one of the movie of Superman,but when he was asked to correct Kalchakra,he declined No kidding,check it,it was in one of the episode.Ha Ha Ha !

    Recommend

  • khan
    Jul 15, 2012 - 1:00AM

    Ms! you are an american national; it is disgusting to learn lessons of nationalism from you. Recommend

  • Thank you
    Jul 15, 2012 - 1:16AM

    And just what exactly does an article like this achieve ?
    I am saying this as an Indian, forget about secularism just get your country in order.
    If there is law,development,peace and security, life will become better for the minorities.
    Sanity starts prevailing when it comes to development and progress of the country.
    When every narrative seems inconclusive, why not just put the question to rest.

    Recommend

More in Opinion