I disagree with you. You didn't understand the meaning of nation and nationalism. Its surprising for me that you only considered the political unity as the basics of nation. My dear culture religion and historical experiences are much more important than the political unity. Look at the Jews before 1949 they were dispersed in Europe, had no political unity. But they were a nation according to all definitions International Law. Because that scattered community was culturally religiously and historically 1 . Same case for Muslims in India.

2ndly.... DIVIDE AND RULE... V simple to abuse Jinnah. But difficult to prove. All divisions are not made for rule, All are not made by rulers. Division between Hindus and Muslims were not made by British Imperialism. Britishers just exploited this division. They were not responsible of its creation. It was present even before the advent of Britain. And for your kind information.... It was present even before the Muslims in India. Huns and Aryans.. Scheduled class Hindus and privileged class of Brahmans..
Learn from history before defaming the names of great leaders and great cause.
Long Live Pakistan.
Regards.

I am still waiting for the satisfactory answers of the points i raised........

__________________
Whatever mind can conceive,it can achieve - W.Clement Stone

Lionking & waseem gurmani

read the book by a most daring and impartial young urdu writter Arif mian tittled ,,, Barre saghir kyoun toota,,. here on this forum dont expect to get satisfactory answer and also not waste your time

If your are suggesting a book, then I assume that you have read it too. Why don't you provide a satisfactory answer?

__________________
Regards,
P.R.

1.Why appeal for a separate nation was made on the name of Islam?
Ans:Because concept of nation before Iqbal was not based upon geography, culture, language, race, caste or creed but on Religion. Its commonsense that the demand for a nation state would be made on basics of being a nation.
2. If Pakistan was to be made a secular country, so was the call of Congress regarding secular India, then why to make a separate country?
Ans:Concept of pakistan was neither seculer nor Theocratic it was a new concept of state never thought in History before.
3. If pakistan was to be a secular country, why those who joined the cause were predominently muslims, why non-muslims didnt contribute?
4.Why there was a call "Muslim hay tu league mein aa"? why not non-muslims?
Ans:Don't intermingle the propaganda techniques with the principles of the movement. Slogans are made for public appeal. The purpose behind this was to organize Muslim Masses under the flag of Muslim league for Pakistan Not to oppress non Muslims. Its logical that a nation state would only be made by the mobilization of that nation.

5. Why Muslim league was in the forefront with respect to the issues of Muslims all over the world?
Ans:Its because of Iqbal concept of nationalism.

6. Why british were so easily convinced that Muslims and Hindus will never live together dispite they had the same ideology of Liberalism and secularism?
Ans:Britishers have faced much because of their mutual conflicts. Urdu Hindi controversy, partition of Bengal, Civil disobedience movement of Gandhi, Quit India and Divide and Quit. All these historical movements had envisaged Idea of Two Nation Theory. And Britishers were never convinced of separation before 1947. All their constitutional developments from 1909 to 1945 were based upon the perspective of United India. Election of 1946 was competed by the Muslim League on the name of Pakistan. You are right Britishers were secular, liberal but they were also profound believers of DEMOCRACY. They couldn't suppress the demands of people representatives.

For those who think Pakistan was made in the name of Islam

1. Quaid himslef was a non-practising shia, how it is possible that he would have advocated a religiously theocratic state
2.Quaid not a single time refered Pakistan as "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"?
3.At 11 august,1947 he unequivocally proclaimed that religion has nothing to do with the business of state?
6.Muslims who joined Muslim League were not that much practicing, why they would have considered the option of a country with strict religious laws?
Ans: i hav told much about these in my previous posts.
4. Why famous religious leaders of India refused to join Muslim league and why they rejected the idea of a separate "Muslim" state??
Ans:Because they were severe opponents of Iqbal's concept of Nation State. 2ndly they don want to lose their religious position in Pakistan . Because there the decisions of religion would be made by Representatives of State. A new Fiqah you can say. Its unbearable for them to leave their old age position of interpretation of Shariah. (Although this dream of Iqbal was not fulfilled till yet)
5. If muslims thought that they are different from Hindus and they cant live with them in any case why they came with idea of a separate country so late?
Ans:This demand for a new state require some prerequisites, It can only be made in some specific international and national conditions. the most important of this was a well organized political party. Which Muslims lack before 1930s.

Regards

__________________
"Ubherta ha mitt mitt ka naqsh e hayat"

Hello Dear

First, very shortly, I would say you have all the right to disagree.
Secondly, Cultural and religion and historical experience could not glue MUslaim into a nation at that time.You know better as you claim to have read the history more ,then you should know this fact.The states of Deccan,MAlwa,Gujrat,Bengal,Sind, and many more...were divided although all these were Muslim states.But still they claim to had different Culture,Language and History and they were proud of their own peculiar cultures....They had their heroes.. Example....Khushal khan for Pathans..MAalik amber in Deccan......etc etc......don't go too far just take the exalmple of Bengal.all you know well........... still don't agree...

I am in hurry so I cannot give you a detail reply right now.But only say that we should try to see the history with an impartial and unbiased approach ...and should not accept everything with blind faith....There are many dimensions of things...

Lastly, You may know the history well.But you ca'nt claim to knw it all....bye

__________________
You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't try.

@oriental
hp it doesn t sound offending.its no personal discussion so lets not make it one.let the discourse make its way towards truth.

nationalism a concept was nvr promoted in indian subconinent by any ruler.akbar,sher shah are few names whot to an extent worked towards that end.thats the reason overthrowing n replacement of dynasties was so simple nn easy n tht to w/o invoking subjects' least of concern.what they used to know r care abt the ruling authority was the knowledge f the king.this concept came to surface due to two factors:
a-discreminatory n unjust treatmnt f muslims n threats to thier very existence
b-inception f british rule brought w/ them a detailed knowlrdge f this concept,something that gave words to muslims' common pursuit

lastly saying that they had dif. heroes e.g MALIK AMBER is making a technical error he was ruler of a saparate state as india was devided into various states.so is today's world the fact that muslim world is not united does nt necesserily mean that its devided its just a new farm f the world.im not oppose to khilafat but if its not existent we need not undermine any other farm of the world.differences does not alwas mean a definit devide!

__________________
Stop counting your problems rather raise for their solution and BEGIN JIHAD.

You Know what if these ppl living in subcontinent or modern day pk were blacks,espaniols,jews and were going thru same trauma as the muslims of the time,Jinnah wud have had fought for a black,spanish or jewish state in the middle of south Asia. Islam was not a ploy,It was the string which was bringing people together of this region. Just like color,language or religion is a string which brought blacks together in 60's,Jews after WW2 and latinos in the 20th century. Jinnah fought for a separate nation and all these waderas and feudal lords of the time sided him because they had already planned to hijack the nation once he went and plus at that time they were under debt by Hindu bunyas. they sided him because they thought once the British raj is over they will get back their lands and properties and wud not owe any debt to the Hindus. So when pakistan came into being, these people emerged as feudal lords called by names such as pirs,somroos, zardaris ,jatois,chaudharis and stuff and started showing their true facade. they knew that once Jinnah was dead, nobody had enough deep insight to stop them from what they wanted to do. They let Jinnah do all the hard work and after he died , Liaqat Ali Khan was martyred, It was all easy for them. The only thing I like about India today is that Nehru abolished feudal system in the initial stages of the development. But still, even there only a few people are controlling political arena.

__________________
“Never oppress the one who has no-one but Allah to listen to his/her cries.”Imam syed ZainulAbideen(A.S)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESrpX...eature=related

This is the original English link of my previously posted piece.

__________________
“Never oppress the one who has no-one but Allah to listen to his/her cries.”Imam syed ZainulAbideen(A.S)

abolished structural feudalism only,theoratical n normative feudalism,no one could ever get rid f it anywhere!

__________________
Stop counting your problems rather raise for their solution and BEGIN JIHAD.