Why Pakistan was created at all is the main question. Why do a large number of Muslims still in India if Islam was in danger in the Muslim majority states in British India prior to independence? Jinnah was the most illogical person to create Pakistan with the help of the British. All the logic of Jinnah was wrong.
The irony of history was Jinnah once called as an ambassador of hindu-muslim unity in early 1900s,and never a strictly practicing muslim,married parsi woman,born shia,very much an Anglophile in habits,dress and life style,even he opposed Mahatma Gandhi in khilaphat movement(on the account of mixing of religion with politics) ended up in creating a theocratic islamic republic of Pakistan on the other hand the great soul Mahatma Gandhi,most religious person, devote hindu ended up in creating a secular democratic republic of India Even the great muslim leader Maulana Abul kalam Ajad was an islamic scholar, theologian,devote muslim stood for secular India who told at that time Pakistan was a futile exercise,he had more farsightedness than Jinnah,who forcefully imposed Urdu on East Pakistan with narrow mindedness Even now pakistanis are never learning from mistakes-they are neglecting their mother tongues(punjabi,sindhi,pastho etc) by imposing urdu as a national language-what is the basis for urdu became national language,how many people of pakistani have urdu as mother tongue-on the other hand India has 22 official languages(includes sindhi,punjabi)
Was Jinnah Secular????? He opposed marriage of his daughter to a non muslim. His daughter had to leave him to find her happiness. Even Jinnah's sister was dubbed as RAW agent by pakistanis themselves.
Ayesha probably does not know that Churchill had secretly assured Jinnah in 1940 full support from the British for Muslim cause in India. Again in 1945, Churchill reaffirmed to Jinnah full British support for Pakistan, 4 years before it was created. Without Churchill's backing, Jinnah could have done nothing. Jinnah wanted to create a state without ever clearly laying out his vision for it. He did not write a single document that can be referred to as his philosophy for Pakistan. Essentially throughout his life, he harped on a single concept Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had laid out in 1887, that is: Muslims are different people from Hindus and thus they can not live together in one nation if British were ever to leave. Churchill hated Gandhi from their very first meeting London way back in 1915 (I may be wrong about exact year). He had called Gandhi as most dangerous man to the British Empire. So when Churchill became PM in 1940, he did everything he could to harm Gandhi and his Congress Party. Jinnah was of course his trusted go-to man to drive the communal wedge between Hindus and Muslims. Now some seventy years later, Muslims in India are living much more peacefully and happier life than those in Pakistan. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Jinnah have been proven wrong. I recommend everyone who wants to know true history of partition of India to read following 2 books. 1. An American Witness to India's Partition by Phillip Talbot 2. Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry by Arthur Herman
There is a book by NS Sarila, the ADC of the last three Vice Roys of India. In 1934-35 British decided to create Pakistan where the British army would stay in case the British would have to leave India. Jinnah was in London at that time. He was recruited as the agent of the British to create Pakistan.
To claim that Pakistan was not created as a Muslim homeland is an absolute absurdity to say the least (a great attempt to fool people at large and speak half truths and equivocation).
Ayesha, though being very reasonable (mostly not always) and a respected historian has very conveniently avoided answering question of first gentleman in audience while the guy who asked very reasonably and rationally. Where Ayesha taking advantage of being a guest speaker was trying to silent the guy but counter question on secular rather than addressing the issue. The guy did point out that he gave reasons and examples to thing Jinnah and other leaders as communal and she should prove her point with right examples that would put things into perspectives. She was visibly upset by the question more because she immediately had nothing to defend and somewhere in case of Jinnah she is also side of making heros and icons out of human beings that all leaders always are. She seems to suffer from superior complex and really impatient to interrupt the people in between who pose question rather than letting them to complete
Gentleman who questioned romantic view which Royal Anglophone Pakistani Elite (RAPE) have about Jinah should have received an answer and not a snub. Jinah is also a parachuted ruler of Pakistan. Jinah had retired of all the places to England, against which supposedly he fought for independence of Indian people. He came back after six years of stay in England after a promise by British of support. He helped British in dividing the Indians so that the natives struggle for independence weakens, and for that he was amply rewarded by the British. Initially demand for the Pakistan was bargaining chip, to have 20% of minority Indian population, mainly Muslims, have majority say in governance of India. Jinah was not a practicing Muslim, he was heavy drinker and a port eater but had not qualms in calling for violent Direct Action Day to save Islam, in which more than 10,000 Indians got killed in 1946. Religion as a concept/construct was invented by Romans to divide the natives of western middle Asia long after death of Jesus so they can be enslaved/ruled. The original Abrahamics, i.e., Jews got divided and ultimately almost destroyed. Religion is for giving new identity for the native convert so that they willingly work for or become cannon fodder for empire building wars of distant Khilafa/Pope with an alien book in hand which sanctions their killing/genocide and loot of other distant natives calling them Pagan/Kaffir/unbeliever/idolaters. Indians did not call themselves Hindu. It is Islamized Persians and Arabs who gave them a religious identity. They practiced their spirituality and had inherently lots of diversity but it did not lead to conflicts, not violent one at least. This diversity is in reality celebrated in India. Dharma/Dhamma went to corners of Asia such as China and Japan, without a sword or even a book. It taught them how to mediate or do yogasana. Even Karate went from India as meditative sport or movements. It did not alter Chinese/Japanese follower's native identity, did not ask them to give up their own native language, adopt Indian (Sanskrit) names and give up connection to their ancestors and their history. But the religions such as Islam and Christianity do all those things to give a political identity. Today's Pakistani hates every thing native, does not want to speak his native mother tongue, hates every thing native, disowns his own ancestors and looks for his own ancestors in distant desert and Central Asian barren land. Pakistani is rootless parasite who is willing cannon fodder for distant Khilafa/Saudi King/ American President.
Aeysha, I think the gentlemen who asked the first question were right... I think its time for people like you and Prof Akbar to stop publishing a romantic view of Jinnha ... You sounded more like Lt Gen Hamid Gul. The difference being that he also has an romantic view of Jinnha however he calls him an Islamist rather than a secular the image you were painting.
When you give up romanticised view of Nehru, Gandhi and Hindu revivalist parties then an objective perspective may emerge. The romanticism of a unified utopian Bharat is is just that a fantasy. India was never a unified country except under the British with Queen Victoria as the Maha rani or Malika e Hind. The Mughals were the only rulers that ever came close to it. So the partition was. not an illogical result.
Arsala, I think you need to read up and learn about your region. Giving you some thoughts ... (a) Gandhiji and especially Nehru are criticized on regular basis. Gandhiji for his autocratic approach and Nehru for his left leaning.. I could go on and on... but you have to dig. The problem statement is if any John or Charlie have a romantic views ... should be ok but.... people like Jalal ... its sad. Bharat / India have been united at various points of time in history ..... Maurya's, Ashoka, Mughals ... Brits and Congress have integrated it at points of time. Unlike Pakistan ... Bharat / India isn't Hindu its everything.... Pakistan is Muslim. To explain you.... my girlfriend ... is also a daughter to someone ... friends with a lot of people ... owes allegiences to an partially overlapping set of people / entities... She isn't a mirror image of me.
11.27: "Jinnah was the most important man in Asia" is akin to saying Hitler was the most important man in Europe. Both changed the history and geography of their regions!
The name Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure" in Urdu and Persian. It comes from the word pāk meaning pure in Persian and Pashto] while the word istān is a Persian word meaning place of; it is a cognate of the Sanskrit word sthān (Devanagari: स्थान [st̪ʰaːn]). It was coined in 1933 as Pakstan by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet Now or Never,using it as an acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN") referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan".[29][30][31] The letter i was incorporated to ease pronunciation and form the linguistically correct and meaningful name Then where is B for bangla-thats why they separated.The concept of pakistan defeated partially when 1/3 rd of subcontinent muslims choose to remain in India.After that pakistan definition completely defeated when Bangladesh separated in 1971
Choudhry rehmat Ali kee book study karo us kee book per pabandi hey Pakistan mein herani kee bat hey nah kisi nay book study kee hey nah hee kisi ko book per bat kertay suna
Liqyat : Author of the the Objectives Resolution .. and you call him an open minded person. You say that a Pakistani is comfortable wearing multiple identities ... a Sindhi, a Shia, a Muslim.... so the question is why was Pakistan needed ?
@@mansooriqbal5254 Yes, we are looking at India. Polarization politics is all time high. But if we observe from the broader view then you will find that there is a rise of right wing all over the world. India is not different. The great thing is politicians come and go but institutions remains intact. Our courts, parliament, election commission, president, council of ministers, etc are strong
She is right on the mark when one looks at Indian or any other former colonial country’s population, the attitude of arrogance towards own countrymen and women is very much evident. I experienced it in the USA’s diaspora, in Republic of Ghana and Also in India-my birth country. I can list many episodes of arrogance where a white American and I faced an Indian , the difference in showing respect for both is natural. White of course gets attention and Desi unless as or more important, gets the ignorance. Can’t get Raj and ruling Empire’s white supremacy out of blood.
Sir,and Madams the struggle of Pakistan started in 1858 following the takeover of indian administration by British Crown. Of course Mr jinnah was the bridegroom of a large number of 'Baratis' of a long 'Baraat' extending over 90 years.
If Pakistan was created for Muslims why did you not allow Indian Muslims to migrate to Pakistan. Thousand of Sikhs and Hindus were massacred in Pakistan.the rest were forced to flee to India. Of the 21% Hindu and Sikh population before 1947, today Sikh and Hindu population is only 1% if Pakistan population. The majority of them are in Sindh. On the other hand Muslim population in India was less than 9% before 1947 which is now almost 15%. This is because Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru protected the Muslims.Percentage Increase is mainly because of high Muslim birthrate and influx of Muslims from Bangladesh and Myanmar.
Aeysha, some points... - Your statement that Military became powerful in 50's however you forget Jinnah's use of Military in 1948. What you are not evaluating is the very idea of Pakistan... Homeland for Indian Muslims... was it needed. And all the bloodshed which accompanied creation of Pakistan. There are historical accounts of what Gandhi was doing to bring normalcy across the subcontinent, the only account about Jinnha is that he shed a tear while visiting a refugee camp in Karachi.. Nothing more in popular history. - Then you go about saying that 1971 was a re-run of what happened in 1947, and the crux was power sharing. Well there are no instances of oppression by Hindus in 1947, it was an imaginary problem created by AIML. However their is enough recorded atrocities pre 1971.. this is something you are glossing over - Your next point is Bhutto wanted to resurrect the failing moral of the country by building the A-Bomb. The question you are not evaluating or glossing over is the fact that " were their other ways to resurrect the nation other that building the Bomb". A good , peaceful space program could have done the trick. You also call Bhutto a China Hugger... well, wasn't it the obvious choice. India's enemy is my friend, while he also didn't explain the role of China during the 1971 war? - Was A-Bomb so critical that Bhutto had to have the Ahamadis labeled non-Muslim ? As a statesman could he not forecast the future cost of his actions ? Well call me what ever you want but Both Jinnha and Bhutto were charismatic individuals, probably made sense while trying to solve immediate issues. However lacked the farsightedness, my best guess would be beyond six months.
I think the question is not the creation of Pakistan but the creation of Bharat. It is this theocratic and religious perspective of the so-called India that should be critiqued. The emergence of Hindu-revivalist parties, Hindu nationalism, the Hindu veneer of the Congress, the Urdu- Hindi controversy and Hindu-Muslim communal ism.
You are a liar. Jinnah didn't use military in 1948 but a Lashkar of Pashtun tribals, including my grandfather's brothers and their sons, volunteered and got to outside of Srinagar when Nehru went to UN pleading for ceasefire and then tricking Pak PM Liaqat Ali to ask the tribals to withdraw and promised to do the same for Bharti forces nut in typical Hindu two-facedness refused to do so as well as not honouring his promise to hold a referendum in the principality. As you have followed Nehru's lying tradition I am going to ignore the fabrication in rest of your post. Among us Pashtuns we never trust a Hindu but have respect only for Sikhs who have fine tradition of morals and ethics. And that's why we have many of Baba Nanak's followers living among us.
Actually in the 1962 thrashing of India by China Mao advised Ayub Khan to attack and retake Kashmir Valley but unlike the Hindu double gaming the president replied we don't do the unethical and unmanly action of thrusting knife in the back unlike Indira Gandhi who took advantage of a civil unrest and refugees from cyclone to instigate a civil war and invading the former east pakistan. Watch your own Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw on the matter when interviewed by an Indian anchor.
Do you think if we didn't have nuclear weapons India wouldn't have invaded Pakistan as Indira Gandhi promised after the fall of Dacca? Pakistan needed that nukes for its safety despite being a peacenik I do believe that a country like India, which has never recognised Pakistan, as admitted by ex-PM VP Singh, will always try to either invade it or dismember it.
@Dilshad Bharat was created Dilshad Kumar as it was India before 1947 and Hindustan under the Muslims. It was never a united country as portrayed in the mythological Mahabharat. There never was a single country before the British extended the Muslim Mughal empire. You are a mythical Muslim as is Mahabharat.
She can't afford to tell the truth to Pakistanis unless she has decided to never return to Pakistan. She will not own up that Jinnah went for direct actions driving Muslims with hate after his unjust demands based on religion were rejected. In fact Jinnah had not implemented in Pakistan any of the very same things he demanded from Congress after partition like he was seeking a confederation. Was Bengal made a part of Pakistan confederation. He wanted separate electorate for Muslims in undivided India but why would he not not give the same to other minorities in Pakistan. Why did he take Balochistan by force or sent people to snatch Kashmir or dismiss the govt of North West frontier (present day KPK). So, she can not really tell the truth. In fact no Pakistani can tell the truth either as it will mean the justification for Pakistan will be gone.
Jinnah was much better than Gandhi both on intellectual and character level. Jinnah's personality and morality was the best in his time in the field of politics. He respected women and gave them high status. Gandhi on the other hand was a little perverted guy, sleeping naked with women under the pretext of having cold...just sick! He even slept with his grand niece, which is incest, no wonder his people are known for rape and his country has the rape capital of the world. Just read this article from the independence and his biographer, enjoy!: www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html
look at their constitutions one is based on Islamic ideology which is antithetical to modern world another one is modern secular constitution with pluralistic traditions and it borrowed many best features from american,british,french etc constitutions and incorporated in to indian constitution with suitable changes to suit local tradition indian founding fathers strive for consensus in constitutional making which is a hard labor of almost three year process and hundreds of sessions-the idea of india is a modern idea and the idea of pakistan is a medieval idea
TheNationalLeague thats why I said the idea of india not Indian idea did you got the difference and also indian constitution and indian society are flexible enough to with stand any big challenges as it is a open society
To all the haters! Here her work on Jinnah/partition of India/pakistan movement/Congress-led Indian freedom struggle etc. challenges the nationalist orthodoxies of both India and Pakistan!! There have been Indians who have said the same stuff as she is saying namely Jaswant Singh(who's book on Jinnah was banned in many states of" progressive secular liberal social democratic India!!") and Nisid Hajari!
Historians are the only academics that exploit historical facts largely to gain personal interests. Ayesha depicts a disparate picture of history that contradicts that of Ishtiaq, a conspiracy theorist. Ishtiaq, I think, is distorting the people's history just to get public attention; he wants to sell his books as much as he can, and that's the reason he gives a ludicrous touch to historical happenings. I think that Jalal's strong grip is much worthy compared to that of Ishtiaq. Even Jalal thinks so; she considers him a political scientist, not a historian as he analyses the historical incidents through the lens of politics. Jalal, on the other hand, is an exquisite historian, depicting history that is more nearer to reality. I like the personality, intelligence, and beauty of her brain. The erudition and eloquence of Jalal speak louder than her words.
She is just a jinnah apologist. Her life’s work is centred around redeeming Jinnah’s reputation and convincing everyone that he was not communal. She just represents the Lahori punjabi elite who have a stake in the state of Pakistan and therefore desperately want to justify its birth
Jalal's PhD degree should be withdrawn as she could not prove that Jinnah was a secular person.
Why Pakistan was created at all is the main question. Why do a large number of Muslims still in India if Islam was in danger in the Muslim majority states in British India prior to independence? Jinnah was the most illogical person to create Pakistan with the help of the British. All the logic of Jinnah was wrong.
The irony of history was Jinnah once called as an ambassador of hindu-muslim unity in early 1900s,and never a strictly practicing muslim,married parsi woman,born shia,very much an Anglophile in habits,dress and life style,even he opposed Mahatma Gandhi in khilaphat movement(on the account of mixing of religion with politics) ended up in creating a theocratic islamic republic of Pakistan on the other hand the great soul Mahatma Gandhi,most religious person, devote hindu ended up in creating a secular democratic republic of India
Even the great muslim leader Maulana Abul kalam Ajad was an islamic scholar, theologian,devote muslim stood for secular India who told at that time Pakistan was a futile exercise,he had more farsightedness than Jinnah,who forcefully imposed Urdu on East Pakistan with narrow mindedness
Even now pakistanis are never learning from mistakes-they are neglecting their mother tongues(punjabi,sindhi,pastho etc) by imposing urdu as a national language-what is the basis for urdu became national language,how many people of pakistani have urdu as mother tongue-on the other hand India has 22 official languages(includes sindhi,punjabi)
Was Jinnah Secular????? He opposed marriage of his daughter to a non muslim. His daughter had to leave him to find her happiness. Even Jinnah's sister was dubbed as RAW agent by pakistanis themselves.
Ayesha probably does not know that Churchill had secretly assured Jinnah in 1940 full support from the British for Muslim cause in India. Again in 1945, Churchill reaffirmed to Jinnah full British support for Pakistan, 4 years before it was created. Without Churchill's backing, Jinnah could have done nothing. Jinnah wanted to create a state without ever clearly laying out his vision for it. He did not write a single document that can be referred to as his philosophy for Pakistan. Essentially throughout his life, he harped on a single concept Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had laid out in 1887, that is: Muslims are different people from Hindus and thus they can not live together in one nation if British were ever to leave.
Churchill hated Gandhi from their very first meeting London way back in 1915 (I may be wrong about exact year). He had called Gandhi as most dangerous man to the British Empire. So when Churchill became PM in 1940, he did everything he could to harm Gandhi and his Congress Party. Jinnah was of course his trusted go-to man to drive the communal wedge between Hindus and Muslims. Now some seventy years later, Muslims in India are living much more peacefully and happier life than those in Pakistan. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Jinnah have been proven wrong.
I recommend everyone who wants to know true history of partition of India to read following 2 books.
1. An American Witness to India's Partition by Phillip Talbot
2. Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry by Arthur Herman
There is a book by NS Sarila, the ADC of the last three Vice Roys of India. In 1934-35 British decided to create Pakistan where the British army would stay in case the British would have to leave India. Jinnah was in London at that time. He was recruited as the agent of the British to create Pakistan.
To claim that Pakistan was not created as a Muslim homeland is an absolute absurdity to say the least (a great attempt to fool people at large and speak half truths and equivocation).
Yes
Ayesha, though being very reasonable (mostly not always) and a respected historian has very conveniently avoided answering question of first gentleman in audience while the guy who asked very reasonably and rationally. Where Ayesha taking advantage of being a guest speaker was trying to silent the guy but counter question on secular rather than addressing the issue. The guy did point out that he gave reasons and examples to thing Jinnah and other leaders as communal and she should prove her point with right examples that would put things into perspectives. She was visibly upset by the question more because she immediately had nothing to defend and somewhere in case of Jinnah she is also side of making heros and icons out of human beings that all leaders always are. She seems to suffer from superior complex and really impatient to interrupt the people in between who pose question rather than letting them to complete
Her Ph.D. thesis in Cambridge University is false.
Gentleman who questioned romantic view which Royal Anglophone Pakistani Elite (RAPE) have about Jinah should have received an answer and not a snub. Jinah is also a parachuted ruler of Pakistan. Jinah had retired of all the places to England, against which supposedly he fought for independence of Indian people. He came back after six years of stay in England after a promise by British of support. He helped British in dividing the Indians so that the natives struggle for independence weakens, and for that he was amply rewarded by the British. Initially demand for the Pakistan was bargaining chip, to have 20% of minority Indian population, mainly Muslims, have majority say in governance of India. Jinah was not a practicing Muslim, he was heavy drinker and a port eater but had not qualms in calling for violent Direct Action Day to save Islam, in which more than 10,000 Indians got killed in 1946.
Religion as a concept/construct was invented by Romans to divide the natives of western middle Asia long after death of Jesus so they can be enslaved/ruled. The original Abrahamics, i.e., Jews got divided and ultimately almost destroyed. Religion is for giving new identity for the native convert so that they willingly work for or become cannon fodder for empire building wars of distant Khilafa/Pope with an alien book in hand which sanctions their killing/genocide and loot of other distant natives calling them Pagan/Kaffir/unbeliever/idolaters.
Indians did not call themselves Hindu. It is Islamized Persians and Arabs who gave them a religious identity. They practiced their spirituality and had inherently lots of diversity but it did not lead to conflicts, not violent one at least. This diversity is in reality celebrated in India. Dharma/Dhamma went to corners of Asia such as China and Japan, without a sword or even a book. It taught them how to mediate or do yogasana. Even Karate went from India as meditative sport or movements. It did not alter Chinese/Japanese follower's native identity, did not ask them to give up their own native language, adopt Indian (Sanskrit) names and give up connection to their ancestors and their history. But the religions such as Islam and Christianity do all those things to give a political identity. Today's Pakistani hates every thing native, does not want to speak his native mother tongue, hates every thing native, disowns his own ancestors and looks for his own ancestors in distant desert and Central Asian barren land. Pakistani is rootless parasite who is willing cannon fodder for distant Khilafa/Saudi King/ American President.
One of the best well crafted comment ever seen in this context,not a single word out of place,great sir.
@@sanmrita That's a bullshit comment
Aeysha, I think the gentlemen who asked the first question were right... I think its time for people like you and Prof Akbar to stop publishing a romantic view of Jinnha ... You sounded more like Lt Gen Hamid Gul. The difference being that he also has an romantic view of Jinnha however he calls him an Islamist rather than a secular the image you were painting.
When you give up romanticised view of Nehru, Gandhi and Hindu revivalist parties then an objective perspective may emerge. The romanticism of a unified utopian Bharat is is just that a fantasy. India was never a unified country except under the British with Queen Victoria as the Maha rani or Malika e Hind. The Mughals were the only rulers that ever came close to it. So the partition was. not an illogical result.
Arsala, I think you need to read up and learn about your region. Giving you some thoughts ... (a) Gandhiji and especially Nehru are criticized on regular basis. Gandhiji for his autocratic approach and Nehru for his left leaning.. I could go on and on... but you have to dig.
The problem statement is if any John or Charlie have a romantic views ... should be ok but.... people like Jalal ... its sad.
Bharat / India have been united at various points of time in history ..... Maurya's, Ashoka, Mughals ... Brits and Congress have integrated it at points of time. Unlike Pakistan ... Bharat / India isn't Hindu its everything.... Pakistan is Muslim.
To explain you.... my girlfriend ... is also a daughter to someone ... friends with a lot of people ... owes allegiences to an partially overlapping set of people / entities... She isn't a mirror image of me.
Madam, your optimism is a saving grace !
40:00 on restlessness with politicians is such an important point
Choudhry rehmat Ali kee book per pabandi kion hey us kee book per bat kion nahi kertay kisi ko us kee book per bat kertay nahi suna
When people ask questions which you do not like, you should still listen to them and try to reply back without trying to browbeat them.
11.27: "Jinnah was the most important man in Asia" is akin to saying Hitler was the most important man in Europe. Both changed the history and geography of their regions!
The name Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure" in Urdu and Persian. It comes from the word pāk meaning pure in Persian and Pashto] while the word istān is a Persian word meaning place of; it is a cognate of the Sanskrit word sthān (Devanagari: स्थान [st̪ʰaːn]).
It was coined in 1933 as Pakstan by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet Now or Never,using it as an acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN") referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan".[29][30][31] The letter i was incorporated to ease pronunciation and form the linguistically correct and meaningful name
Then where is B for bangla-thats why they separated.The concept of pakistan defeated partially when 1/3 rd of subcontinent muslims choose to remain in India.After that pakistan definition completely defeated when Bangladesh separated in 1971
Hello there, you made this comment 4 years ago.
Look at India today. You'll have your answer.
@@mansooriqbal5254 India is doing great!! No problem. Reduce your contribution to population growth. Be responsible citizens. Thank you!!
Choudhry rehmat Ali kee book study karo us kee book per pabandi hey Pakistan mein herani kee bat hey nah kisi nay book study kee hey nah hee kisi ko book per bat kertay suna
Liqyat : Author of the the Objectives Resolution .. and you call him an open minded person.
You say that a Pakistani is comfortable wearing multiple identities ... a Sindhi, a Shia, a Muslim.... so the question is why was Pakistan needed ?
Hello there. You've made this comment 4 years ago.
Look at India today, you'll have your answer.
@@mansooriqbal5254 but Jinnah politics was against Congress. His rivals were nehru and gandhi. Same as BJP
@@mansooriqbal5254 Yes, we are looking at India. Polarization politics is all time high. But if we observe from the broader view then you will find that there is a rise of right wing all over the world. India is not different. The great thing is politicians come and go but institutions remains intact. Our courts, parliament, election commission, president, council of ministers, etc are strong
@@mansooriqbal5254
So you mean that Jinnah predicted Modi's government over 70 years ago?
Words are wind, actions are real & Secularism: Separation of state & religion.
In 1947 a surgery was performed on mother india to eliminate two cancer ie east and west Pakistan
She is right on the mark when one looks at Indian or any other former colonial country’s population, the attitude of arrogance towards own countrymen and women is very much evident. I experienced it in the USA’s diaspora, in Republic of Ghana and Also in India-my birth country. I can list many episodes of arrogance where a white American and I faced an Indian , the difference in showing respect for both is natural. White of course gets attention and Desi unless as or more important, gets the ignorance. Can’t get Raj and ruling Empire’s white supremacy out of blood.
my inspiration and love one Historian....
Sir,and Madams the struggle of Pakistan started in 1858 following the takeover of indian administration by British Crown. Of course Mr jinnah was the bridegroom of a large number of 'Baratis' of a long 'Baraat' extending over 90 years.
1:04:14 is when things get real !
very True
If Pakistan was created for Muslims why did you not allow Indian Muslims to migrate to Pakistan. Thousand of Sikhs and Hindus were massacred in Pakistan.the rest were forced to flee to India. Of the 21% Hindu and Sikh population before 1947, today Sikh and Hindu population is only 1% if Pakistan population. The majority of them are in Sindh.
On the other hand Muslim population in India was less than 9% before 1947 which is now almost 15%. This is because Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru protected the Muslims.Percentage Increase is mainly because of high Muslim birthrate and influx of Muslims from Bangladesh and Myanmar.
really Agent of Indian Agency raw,,,, she don't know even anything about Pakistan and Islam,,, when Someone Question to her Just she react and Lough
Aeysha, some points...
- Your statement that Military became powerful in 50's however you forget Jinnah's use of Military in 1948. What you are not evaluating is the very idea of Pakistan... Homeland for Indian Muslims... was it needed. And all the bloodshed which accompanied creation of Pakistan. There are historical accounts of what Gandhi was doing to bring normalcy across the subcontinent, the only account about Jinnha is that he shed a tear while visiting a refugee camp in Karachi.. Nothing more in popular history.
- Then you go about saying that 1971 was a re-run of what happened in 1947, and the crux was power sharing. Well there are no instances of oppression by Hindus in 1947, it was an imaginary problem created by AIML. However their is enough recorded atrocities pre 1971.. this is something you are glossing over
- Your next point is Bhutto wanted to resurrect the failing moral of the country by building the A-Bomb. The question you are not evaluating or glossing over is the fact that " were their other ways to resurrect the nation other that building the Bomb". A good , peaceful space program could have done the trick. You also call Bhutto a China Hugger... well, wasn't it the obvious choice. India's enemy is my friend, while he also didn't explain the role of China during the 1971 war?
- Was A-Bomb so critical that Bhutto had to have the Ahamadis labeled non-Muslim ? As a statesman could he not forecast the future cost of his actions ?
Well call me what ever you want but Both Jinnha and Bhutto were charismatic individuals, probably made sense while trying to solve immediate issues. However lacked the farsightedness, my best guess would be beyond six months.
I think the question is not the creation of Pakistan but the creation of Bharat. It is this theocratic and religious perspective of the so-called India that should be critiqued. The emergence of Hindu-revivalist parties, Hindu nationalism, the Hindu veneer of the Congress, the Urdu- Hindi controversy and Hindu-Muslim communal ism.
You are a liar. Jinnah didn't use military in 1948 but a Lashkar of Pashtun tribals, including my grandfather's brothers and their sons, volunteered and got to outside of Srinagar when Nehru went to UN pleading for ceasefire and then tricking Pak PM Liaqat Ali to ask the tribals to withdraw and promised to do the same for Bharti forces nut in typical Hindu two-facedness refused to do so as well as not honouring his promise to hold a referendum in the principality.
As you have followed Nehru's lying tradition I am going to ignore the fabrication in rest of your post.
Among us Pashtuns we never trust a Hindu but have respect only for Sikhs who have fine tradition of morals and ethics. And that's why we have many of Baba Nanak's followers living among us.
Actually in the 1962 thrashing of India by China Mao advised Ayub Khan to attack and retake Kashmir Valley but unlike the Hindu double gaming the president replied we don't do the unethical and unmanly action of thrusting knife in the back unlike Indira Gandhi who took advantage of a civil unrest and refugees from cyclone to instigate a civil war and invading the former east pakistan. Watch your own Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw on the matter when interviewed by an Indian anchor.
Do you think if we didn't have nuclear weapons India wouldn't have invaded Pakistan as Indira Gandhi promised after the fall of Dacca?
Pakistan needed that nukes for its safety despite being a peacenik I do believe that a country like India, which has never recognised Pakistan, as admitted by ex-PM VP Singh, will always try to either invade it or dismember it.
@Dilshad Bharat was created Dilshad Kumar as it was India before 1947 and Hindustan under the Muslims. It was never a united country as portrayed in the mythological Mahabharat. There never was a single country before the British extended the Muslim Mughal empire.
You are a mythical Muslim as is Mahabharat.
She can't afford to tell the truth to Pakistanis unless she has decided to never return to Pakistan. She will not own up that Jinnah went for direct actions driving Muslims with hate after his unjust demands based on religion were rejected. In fact Jinnah had not implemented in Pakistan any of the very same things he demanded from Congress after partition like he was seeking a confederation. Was Bengal made a part of Pakistan confederation. He wanted separate electorate for Muslims in undivided India but why would he not not give the same to other minorities in Pakistan. Why did he take Balochistan by force or sent people to snatch Kashmir or dismiss the govt of North West frontier (present day KPK). So, she can not really tell the truth. In fact no Pakistani can tell the truth either as it will mean the justification for Pakistan will be gone.
Jinnah was much better than Gandhi both on intellectual and character level. Jinnah's personality and morality was the best in his time in the field of politics. He respected women and gave them high status. Gandhi on the other hand was a little perverted guy, sleeping naked with women under the pretext of having cold...just sick! He even slept with his grand niece, which is incest, no wonder his people are known for rape and his country has the rape capital of the world. Just read this article from the independence and his biographer, enjoy!:
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html
Kya hua tu waapas bola nahi- naam rakha hai chuha heart which is what you are? Read this chuha - curse of being a Pakistani. wp.me/p2217i-hP
She said it she wanted to paint rosy picture by ignoring facts as they are depressing . Good fictional writing with predmeditated mind
The idea of Pakistan is weaker than Pakistan and the idea of India is stronger than India-MJ Akbar
Please elaborate.
look at their constitutions one is based on Islamic ideology which is antithetical to modern world another one is modern secular constitution with pluralistic traditions and it borrowed many best features from american,british,french etc constitutions and incorporated in to indian constitution with suitable changes to suit local tradition
indian founding fathers strive for consensus in constitutional making which is a hard labor of almost three year process and hundreds of sessions-the idea of india is a modern idea and the idea of pakistan is a medieval idea
+narahari javaji if india has borrowed ideas from US, UK and other parts of the world as you said, then its not "Idea of India" its just bollywood.
TheNationalLeague thats why I said the idea of india not Indian idea did you got the difference and also indian constitution and indian society are flexible enough to with stand any big challenges as it is a open society
So Idea of India is to take other people's ideas, how original.
To all the haters! Here her work on Jinnah/partition of India/pakistan movement/Congress-led Indian freedom struggle etc. challenges the nationalist orthodoxies of both India and Pakistan!! There have been Indians who have said the same stuff as she is saying namely Jaswant Singh(who's book on Jinnah was banned in many states of" progressive secular liberal social democratic India!!") and Nisid Hajari!
Very few Pakistani can talk truth about its history & most outsiders will never know the real history of Pakistan from these liars.
Historians are the only academics that exploit historical facts largely to gain personal interests. Ayesha depicts a disparate picture of history that contradicts that of Ishtiaq, a conspiracy theorist. Ishtiaq, I think, is distorting the people's history just to get public attention; he wants to sell his books as much as he can, and that's the reason he gives a ludicrous touch to historical happenings. I think that Jalal's strong grip is much worthy compared to that of Ishtiaq. Even Jalal thinks so; she considers him a political scientist, not a historian as he analyses the historical incidents through the lens of politics. Jalal, on the other hand, is an exquisite historian, depicting history that is more nearer to reality. I like the personality, intelligence, and beauty of her brain. The erudition and eloquence of Jalal speak louder than her words.
She is just a jinnah apologist. Her life’s work is centred around redeeming Jinnah’s reputation and convincing everyone that he was not communal. She just represents the Lahori punjabi elite who have a stake in the state of Pakistan and therefore desperately want to justify its birth
Jalal's PhD degree should be withdrawn as she could not prove that Jinnah was a secular person.
Pretty vague
What a rambling lecture
How arrogant Ayesha Jalal is. And how wishy washy, weak and strident her tone is.
Ayesha Jalal typical liar .She lost the argument in the first question .
u spin lot of words .
she is very smug,