Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Jinnah would have regretted making Pakistan

Discussion in 'Defence Analysis' started by Levina, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    677
    Country Flag:
    India
    It is debatable whether Jinnah would have regretted or not but Indians should be very happy that he did it else India today would have been a Islamic nation with Muslim majority population.

    As @Rain Man said the partition should have been more cleaner.

    More wackos from regions like Hyderabad, Bombay, UP, Assam, West Bengal, Bihar & Jharkhand moving to the other side of the border should have been achieved.

    Jamaat-e-Islami was a big spoiler for ensuring a clean partition.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2017
    Rain Man, AbRaj and Levina like this.
  2. ISRO_RLV

    ISRO_RLV IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Country Flag:
    Ukraine
    So true... we should thanx jinna for taking venom out of india
     
    Levina, Pundrick and dadeechi like this.
  3. Pundrick

    Pundrick Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    919
    Country Flag:
    India
    Jinnah according to me was an educated radical Islamist, his only objective was to get the power of the land into the hands of Muslims. Because he thought the britishers are giving India a system which will never give him or Muslim League a chance to form a government ever in India.

    Plus he hated Sardar & Nehru, because they both believed in secular principles and were strictly against the formation of any political party on religious or sectarian ground.

    So today's Pakistan is nothing but the thought of Jinnah's political ambition only and no Jinnah won't be regretting today's Pakistan because somehow he wanted a Pakistan into the hands of Muslims which is the case right now. But he would have regretted atrocities against Shias & Ahmedis, not Hindus,Buddhist or Christians.
     
    Rain Man, Levina and dadeechi like this.
  4. Levina

    Levina Colonel on stilettos Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Country Flag:
    United Arab Emirates
    Interesting!
    Do you mean he manipulated the feelings of muslims who might have faced discrimination at the hands of hindus?

    Don't mind, but Gandhi was a political tool for Britishers. He was a sulking old man, but his influence on people helped Britishers propagate and achieve their agenda of preventing a mass uprising against them. Dont forget that Gandhi, Nehru and muslim league were in favour of a dominion status for India (Gandhi-Irwin pact is a proof), but it was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who brought in the demand for "purna swaraj".

    I'm not sure but India would not have remained united for long if Pakistan had not been formed. Partition had to happen.
    Expecting you to elaborate it. :)

    It is interesting to note that Jinnah was at the fore front of Hindu Muslim unity till late 1930s. So what changed Jinnah?
    Jinnah joined muslim league after facing humiliation at the hands of Gandhi and Nehru (prolly). Muslim league and Jinnah gained prominence after the quit India movement.
     
    Rain Man, vstol jockey and AbRaj like this.
  5. AbRaj

    AbRaj Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    Country Flag:
    India
    Nationalism is actively discouraged in Islam.
    Islam see it as a threat to its supermacy
     
    Pundrick, Levina and vstol jockey like this.
  6. Levina

    Levina Colonel on stilettos Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Country Flag:
    United Arab Emirates
    Misinterpretation of the religion has caused such decay. Islam might discourage nationalism but not for the reason you've mentioned.
     
  7. Pundrick

    Pundrick Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    919
    Country Flag:
    India
    Not in Islam bro, but by some fanatic Molvis does spread such messages, Nation(Mulk) is very important entity in Islam, the Quran even says to die for nation and create Jihad against the forces which disrupt the peace in your country.
     
    Levina likes this.
  8. Pundrick

    Pundrick Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    919
    Country Flag:
    India
    There was a TV series on Rajya Sabha TV which explains each and everything about why Jinnah was against idea of "Akandh Bharat" and why his aspirations were politically motivated.

    Go through this link.

     
    Levina likes this.
  9. AbRaj

    AbRaj Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    Country Flag:
    India
    Quranic definition of Mulk is different than present day concept.
    They believes in Caliphate made up of Muslims where "non Muslims" may be "allowed to live"
    @Levina To me this "mis- interpretation" thingy is pure BS. actually we (non pure-Islamist ) don't want to hear what seems crual to us. But that don't mean anything.
    Go to zerocensorship.com and view their video . you will be surprised to see the actual "Arabic Islam" which to me seems "true Islam" not our Sufi dancing singing moderate more accommodative Indian Islam.
    Indian Islam is more or less neutralized version
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2017
    Rain Man, Pundrick and Indx TechStyle like this.
  10. Tejasmk3

    Tejasmk3 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    611
    Country Flag:
    India
    But somehow Arabs, Iranians all seem very nationalistic. This type of thinking I've seen primarily from some Sub continental muslims. Even going to the point of saying "I will die Saudi Arabia" type stuff, especially pakistani muslims.
     
    Levina and Indx TechStyle like this.
  11. AbRaj

    AbRaj Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    Country Flag:
    India
    Arabs are not nationalist but Ethnic people.
    Iranians are different. To them history, race and culture is more important. Islam brought only misery to Iranians ,a perpetual fight with Arabs.
     
    Levina, Indx TechStyle and Gessler like this.
  12. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,804
    Likes Received:
    15,566
    Country Flag:
    India
    This is something I had been stating right from my 11th standard. In my school, we had a debate on the topic-Gandhi's vision is best for India. I opposed the motion and what I stated at that time is what I will post here. I won the debate for my oratory skills but the motion was adopted. It happened bcoz we Indians have been fed so much of bullshit about Gandhi that no one is allowed to even debate any thing negative about him. Let me start from Gandhi and South Africa.
    Gandhi never fought for the freedom of South Africa from British rule. what he achieved was-one king,one set of rules. He demanded and got equal status for all subjects of the crown but as citizens of British crown. He did not ever oppose the British and bcoz of that he was a darling of the British. In 1885, Congress was started as a "Club" to allow interactions between Britain educated elite of India and British Officers. These Britain educated boot lickers of India wanted to have a share in ruling India and thus assume power over the common masses of India. These were basically the educated lot which wanted powers and status equal to small kings/feudal lords/Nawabs. WW1 started in 1914 and British needed a steady supply of food/raw material/manpower from India for its war effort. It is a known fact that India contributed maximum amount of resources in both wars. British needed to keep things well under control during the war within India to be able to concentrate on the European front. In those days Congress had got divided between Garam Dal and Naram Dal. Garam Dal led by Bal-Pal-Lal wanted Poorna Swaraj-Independence from Britain while Naram Dal led by Nehrus, Annie Basent and others preferred the model which Gandhi had implemented in South Africa. Home rule league was also stated for this very purpose and with this as its stated goal.
    British feared that Garam Dal might overthrow the members of Naram Dal and so they pre-empted this by Inducting Gandhi in India. Gandhi was given a very nice publicity in India by the press and Congress and was called the ultimate saviour for India. So Gandhi starts his journey from South Africa and reaches India in first week of Jan 1915 also celebrated as the "Pravasi Diwas" in India. Gandhi's arrival brought about a truce between these two factions of congress and Nehrus got the upper hand. Sardar Patel allied with Gandhi due to the Gujrat factor. British managed to plant their agent in India with outstanding success. but What did Gandhi do during the war? NOTHING. He just toured India lecturing people against social evils like untouchability and preeching Hindu-muslim unity. The complete program of Gandhi was run by Congress with Nehru-Patel as the leaders. Lal-Bal-Pal were completely relegated to being useless in Congress. In 1919, ww1 ended and we got Jalianwala Baag massacre as the gift for supporting British during the war. An armed rebellion started gaining momentum with tacit support of Garam Dal members. Ram Prasad Bismil, Chadrashekhar Azaad, Bhagat Singh and others joined the movement in mid 1920s and so did many others.
    British realised that Gandhi-Nehru combination was being completely routed by Lal Lajpat Rai who also published "Punjab Kesri" newspaper which had a very large readership in the areas which were the largest recruitment grounds for Indian Soldiers in Royal Army-Punjab and Frontier areas.
    So what did British do? They killed Lala Lajpat Rai in a targeted killing during Lathi Charge with approval and support of Nehru-Gandhi-Patel. This led to Bhagat Singh throwing Bombs in Punjab assembly which caused a furious reaction in India and people came out on streets to support these Krantikaaries. British realised that this trio of Nehru-Gandhi-Patel has become useless for them and they started supporting Muslim League. Intially Gandhi had called Bhagat Singh and group as misguided youth of India but their hanging forced congress to rethink its strategy and for the first time in its history since 1885, they demanded "Poorna Swaraj" on 26Th January in their Lahore conclave. It is for this reason that even though our constitution was adopted in Nov 1950, but the Republic day is celebrated on 26th Jan.
    What was Congress demanding between 1885-1930 and what was Gandhi supporting from 1915-1930? They were just fooling the people of India and demanding that they should be made ministers in India and share power with British keeping India a colony of Britain Just the way Gandhi did in South Africa.
     
    Levina, lca-fan, Pundrick and 3 others like this.
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,804
    Likes Received:
    15,566
    Country Flag:
    India
    In 1930, the script went out of the hands of Nehru-Gandhi-Patel troika and people started demanding freedom from Britain. Then started the farce of roud table confrences, and british introduced acts like creating a separate electoral college for muslims and Dalits. Gandhi started leaning towards Jinnah and muslim league and also forced his decisions on Nehru-Patel duo as he had completely taken over Congress and was dictating the agenda of British. The seeds for separation of India were sown by Gandhi and not by Jinnah. Jinnah was a fool who played the part of a villain in a script written by British and directed by Gandhi. Most of 1930s were spent doing this bullshit. But a very young brigade of Nationalist was emerging as the guiding force of Congress led by Bose. he was elected Congress President in 1938 and again in 1939 against best efforts of Gandhi-Nehru-Patel to defeat him. He advocated complete Swaraj and armed struggle against British to achieve Independence.
    HE WAS OPPOSED FOR THIS VERY REASON BY GANDHI-NEHRU-PATEL TROIKA. So who's side were this troika operating-British or Indians? These were agents of British who have been fostered on us as the ultimate leaders who brought us freedom.
    Patel changed in 1946 when the Interim Government was created to give freedom to India and congress chose him to be the PM. Gandhi asked him to let Nehru become PM of India. Why did Gandhi do this? Patel was very strongly opposed to Jinnah and Muslim League-the two institutions which were created by British with active support of Gandhi and Nehru. What interest did Gandhi have in supporting Nehru over Patel and was it not what British had wanted? SO WHO WAS GANDHI-FATHER OF THE NATION OR THE AGENT OF THE BRITISH?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2017
    Pundrick and AbRaj like this.
  14. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,804
    Likes Received:
    15,566
    Country Flag:
    India
    upload_2017-1-2_19-49-29.png We have lived our lives believing “Ahimsa Parmo Dharma” and “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” as taught by that idiot called Gandhi. But has anyone ever read and understood the complete meaning of these shlokas? Late Mr. MK Gandhi quoted only half of the shloka. These half-truths can never be the guiding principle for a nation state. AND these INCOMPLETE statements are irrelevant for a Nation state. I am quoted above for your kind consideration the complete shloka which must be told to our citizens with correct and complete meaning. Ahimsa is only loosely translated as non-violence. Unlike the English word 'non-violence'(which is absolute in its meaning) ahimsa means non-violence in a relative sense. There are times when violence can also be considered ahimsa if that violence is used to stop greater violence. For example, a king should always raise his sword to keep peace and order in his country. He will fail in the discharge of his duty if he does not punish the wicked and his country will be in a state of utter chaos. To hang a murderer is Ahimsa for a king. To kill a man who is taking away the lives of many is Ahimsa. The Ahimsa as practiced by Late Mr. MK Gandhi was “Cowardice”. Only martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sahdev and Sh. Subhash Chandra Bose practiced real Ahimsa. A real Sannyasin, however, should not defend himself even when his life is in danger because he doesn't associate with his body, instead identifying himself with the Brahmstithi.

    उदारः पेशलाचारः सर्वाचारानुवृत्तिमान, अन्तःसङ्ग-परित्यागी बहिः संभारवानिव
    अन्तर्वैराग्यमादाय बहिराशोन्मुखेहितः, अयं बन्धुरयं नेति गणना लघुचेतसां
    उदारचरितानां
    तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकं, भावाभाव विनिर्मुक्तं जरामरणवर्जितं
    प्रशान्त कलनारभ्यं नीरागं पदमाश्रय,एषा ब्राम्ही स्थितिः स्वच्छा निष्कामा विगतामया, आदाय विहरन्नेवं संकटेषु न मुह्यति. (महोपनिषद ६.७०-७३)

    The above text is describing the lakshana and behaviour of great men who are elevated to the coveted bramhsthiti of spiritual realm. The above says: "Elevated one in bramhsthiti is generous, always clean in behaviour, in accordance to the established norms of conduct, and free from all attachments in life. From inside, he has renounced everything, even though outwardly he would appear to carry out worldly duties like any other mortal. However, unlike the small hearted ordinary people who discriminate by saying -This one is a friend and that one a stranger, these great men in bramhsthiti are of magnanimous hearts and embrace the entire world as their own family. They have gained liberation from all constraints of ordinary life, like old age and death; their fires of kleshas have become extinguished; and in them no attachment finds any shelter anymore. Such, Listen O best amongst the brahmanas, are those who have achieved the status of bramhsthiti, the absolutely pure; that which is beyond all cravings and sufferings. Equipped with such attributes they freely roam the earth, without knowing any calamity." Can any of you, I or our Hon’ble PM roam the earth freely? If not, then how can we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” often quoted by our Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee and Modi. None of the nine avatars of Lord Vishnu have ever spoken of Ahimsa Parmo Dharma or Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. If it is not part of our Vedas or Bhagwat Gita, the followers of Sanatan Dharma are not required to follow them or be guided by them which are basically thoughts of ascetics written as essays to offer an alternate narrative.
    These two slokas have been misquoted only to keep Hindu Indians in a vegetative state and prevent a strong violent response from them on the atrocities whch they faced during freedom struggle and till date at the hand of Jihadists.
     
    Levina and Pundrick like this.
  15. Levina

    Levina Colonel on stilettos Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Country Flag:
    United Arab Emirates
    Who told you that Sufi Islam has been only peaceful in the continent? Lol
    But then this forum is not the place to discuss religion so I will refrain from posting further here.

    I personally feel that most of what you've posted is right, though I fear even Gandhi didn't know he was being used by British.
    It was very cleverly orchestrated, Gandhi was an aging man and his immense influence on ppl helped Britishers achieve their selfish motive.
    I have toned down your post, there are many here who might have a different POV on this.
     

Share This Page