@Contra:
1. Jaswant Singhji is entitled to his "opinion". I don't agree with your statement that he was treated as a "muslim" by the Congress party.
Mr. Jinnah was in favour of a legislative struggle against the British, whereas, Mahatma Gandhi wanted a peoples struggle, and wanted to use civil disobedience and non cooperation as the main weapon.
This is a major reason for Mr. Jinnah parting ways with the Congress. Mr. Jinnah thought that civil disobedience will not work.
[Tell me one thing, is there reservation for minorities in government jobs in Pakistan? Especially for the Ahmadi's? I accept that you have separate electorates for them(non Ahmadi's), but then again with negligible numbers what difference can they make?]
Well, it is your prerogative, whether you want to learn the truth from Mr. Singhs five years of research or continue to stick with the notions that have been fed to you since your childhood. As I have already mentioned to you Mr. Singh has made Nehru a man out of demon for at least one Pakistani. I agree that Jinnah did not agree with Gandhi on civil disobedience. Personally, I think that Gandhis civil obedience is over rated. British did not leave the subcontinent because of Gandhis civil disobedience. A lot of countries became independent in the 1940s. It was the time the British were put on pressure by US to leave their colonies. Believe it. The sub-continent would have become independent with or without Gandhis disobedience. Also, not everything Gandhi said was followed upon by Indians themselves. The examples will be Gandhis recommendations for making Jinnah the prime minster, division and distribution of treasury at the time of the partition etc.
Nehru and Patel just marketed Gandhi to gain support for themselves. Didnt follow his notions.
There are reserved seats for the minorities in Pakistans legislative assemblies and senate. There is even a ministry of minorities. I dont know about the private sector.
Comparing Ahmedis with muslims position in India at the time of partition, is like comparing apples with oranges. Ahmedis never ruled over the rest of the muslims for centuries. No muslim ideology (like Hinduvta of Indian Hindus) is seeking revenge from the Ahmedis. BTW, do you know that Musharafs wife is Ahmedi?
Also, I live in Canada. There is no quota for the minority for any jobs. But I see minorities everywhere.
2. Once you have separate electorates, and there are separate Hindu majority and Muslim majority states, then they are de facto different countries, and could declare independence any time.
Actually in Jinnahs model, the sates cant declare independence because security will be controlled by the federal government. No country can last without the assurance of security.
In any event Nehrus and Patels notion of India is not working either. Are not there like 30 independence related movements in India, currently? I know one such movement was eliminated by butchering a community; Khalistan.
3. Not of the kind that Mr. Jinnah was asking. You can say it was comparable to the European Union.
European Union Actually your opinion is totally wrong. European union is going more and more towards Jinnahs model. Note, the Europeans also realized that they are different cultures/nations. That is why they have so many countries in Europe.
4. This is my opinion, and in school Mr. Jinnah is not demonised. By the way, in your school books Hindus and Jews are demonised...and I am sure you are aware of this.
Demonization of Hindus and jews in schools of Pakistan This is an absolute lie. I have been schooled in Pakistan. I have not read a single chapter against hindus or jews. Ill go as far as saying that while I was in Pakistan I did not even see anything against the hindus or the jews on the Pakistan television. All this started when satellite dishes and cable tv became a common thing in Pakistan and the people of Pakistan got access to foreign channels which did and continue to demonize the muslims of the world, including Pakistanis. If you play with mud then be prepared to get dirty.
Jinnahs demonization in India - Lets face the truth. Even Indian TV anchors are saying the same. You while writing your thoughts on this form are demonizing Jinnah. Demonization of Jinnah in India is no fiction. Its a reality.
5. An opportunist? He never became the Prime Minister, the differences with Nehru were over the internal structure of Indian polity. How various states(Kingdoms) were to be assimilated in India. I think the Nawab of Hyderabad wanted to go with Pakistan, it was Sardar Patel who stopped this, otherwise we would have had many mini Pakistans in India today.
a) If you read about Lashkar e Toiba, they clearly state their aim is to "liberate" Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad among others.
b) As i had written earlier, your founder was entering into deals with the Tribesmen to help liberate Kashmir, though I am not aware of this issue of withholding of funds, so don't want to comment on it.
c) Friend in a democracy people with different religions etc. are equal, their right of vote makes them equal, for you to say that muslims would be under Hindu domination is outright false.
Parties need a majority to govern. And they need support from all quarters. So different communities get together and negotiate...
Dude, how could have Patel become the PM of India while Nehru was there? Hence the conflict.
5A. Kashmir should be liberated whether the Lashker wants it or not. Its high time that the Kashmiri people have the referendum that they were promised long time ago. I am no expert in Lashkers ideology or Junagarh. However, I do notice that India and Indians have the tendencies to occupy the territories of people who dont want to be a part of India.
5B. Kashmir- I dont know about any deals but I know one fact. At the time of partition of the subcontinent, the armed forces of the sub-continent were divided between the India and Pakistan. These forces were led by the British officers. When things started to get worse in Kashmir, Jinnah ordered General Gracey (a British), the Chief of General Staff of the Pakistan Army, to send the troops to Kashmir to defend the Indian advances. Gracey refused to obey the order. The reason he gave was that he was British and cant fight the other British. Do you know who led the Indians? Mountbatten. You see this was all a British and Congress conspiracy. If Gracey was not going to defend the Pakistani cause, someone had to. It turned out to be the tribesmen.
5C. Democracy is a western concept and perfect for the western kind of model. We the people of the sub-continent have to come up with our own form of democracy. The current model of democracy suits the best for the western countries. Majority of the western countries are either secular or mono-racial. The problem with the democracy starts when the minorities are in large numbers like in India. This is when the politicians start to work with the vote banks. In order to keep their vote banks happy they start to ignore their non-voters (minorities). Since in the west the minorities are not in large numbers and most of the minorities have the same cultural values as the majorities therefore democracy works perfectly. We have already seen the weaknesses of western model of democracy in India. Didnt you see Indra Gandhis actions against the Sikhs to keep her vote bank happy? We all know about Modi in Gujarat? People of India will have to work hard on their model of democracy. They have to be more creative, like Jinnah, to keep check on the manipulations of the politicians. The western model may work in Pakistan because the percentage of minorities is so small as compared to the masses. We will see the setbacks of the western democracy within our lifetimes as the numbers of immigrants continue to increase in Britain and France. The check and balances in India do not have to be rule of law. For example, in Canada, one cannot imagine a prime minister who is not bilingual (French and English). There is no law, but each political party has learned that it has to appeal to both the anglophones and the francophones parts of the population. This is unlike India, where a party can make a government, although it alienates the minorities (BJP-Hinduvta).
6. Yeah right, heard of the "Genocide in Kurram"?
Friend, if today it is Hindus, then tomorrow it will be Shia's.
Kurram Please kindly do your research. The killings in Kurram agency was performed by the Talibans. The same Talibans have also killed muslims of Pakistan. Our army is engaged in a war against them.
Shia Sunni Pakistan has been in existence for last 62 years. There has been no genocide against the shias. Yes there have been sect based violence in Pakistan among the shias and sunnis but none were state sponsored. The government had always been able to take control of the situation. Hence in any of the conflicts no sect had the advantage over the other, except for the numbers may be, because there are more Sunnis than Shias in Pakistan. Of course there must have been personal biases of the individual peace officers but no collective bias of the government. Unlike Indras and Modis actions which placed the minorities in an unfavorable position because the state was against the minorities.
There are lots of shia in all the political parties and legislative assembly of Pakistan. Actually, I wont be surprised if the Bhutto family is Shia because they are half Iranian.
On a personal note I am a sunni but received ten years of education in a school which is/was a well known shia school. Sunni parents tried their best to have their children enrolled in that school because of its high educational standard. The Islamic studies in the school were structured in such a way that neither sect got offended.
Hence majority of the people in Pakistan dont see each other as enemies. Its a very tiny number of people who are blowing up shias and sunnis. These people will find some other reason to blow up themselves, even if the whole Pakistan becomes either Sunni or Shia tomorrow. As long there is poverty and illiteracy in Pakistan the enemies of Pakistan will continue to use the less blessed.
