Jinnah, an armchair politician

[Peshawer_222]

Bikinis aren't the founding principle of secularism but yes, Pakistanis were much more liberal before than they are now, post-Zia and 9/11.

Pakistan is a weird idea actually. I'd love for it to be secular, but you can't take the religious factor away from it. This was a country meant for 'Muslims of the British Raj', which kind of already says it's a country with a religious identity. I suppose you could equate it with Israel in that it's religious in character, but (supposed to be) secular on paper.

I am a big supporter of Pakistan being secular and remaining true to its founders idea of being a muslim majority population with secular ideas installed in it. When Foreigners come here most of them get a big shock as to open and welcoming Pakistani society is . This government seems to be as secular as Musharraf's .


NA adopts resolution to declare Holi, Dewali, Easter holidays - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Pakistan could be secular, says Supreme Court

Sindh Assembly adopts bill against forced religious conversions - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Pakistan: Caught Between Secularism and Theocracy | Stratfor

It might be a few decades before we become one though

[Kakar-Wardak]

I am a big supporter of Pakistan being secular and remaining true to its founders idea of being a muslim majority population with secular ideas installed in it. When Foreigners come here most of them get a big shock as to open and welcoming Pakistani society is . This government seems to be as secular as Musharraf's .


NA adopts resolution to declare Holi, Dewali, Easter holidays - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Pakistan could be secular, says Supreme Court

Sindh Assembly adopts bill against forced religious conversions - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Pakistan: Caught Between Secularism and Theocracy | Stratfor

It might be a few decades before we become one though

why did you separate from India than?, they are also a secular country.

[dawn]

You're probably right. I haven't interacted much with Pashtuns, and unless they're Brigadiers or Generals in Pak Mil, they usually don't like Jinnah as much as the average Mohajir or Punjabi. Myself, I'm from a Kashmiri-Punjabi family, so they see him as a leader.

I think most Pakistanis like him either because they're unwilling to question their own beliefs or they like him because he was 'secular'. He was the only leader who believed in a secular democracy. To an extent, that is true, but one has to account for the mistakes he made. He definitely should've stayed within the Congress and allied with Gandhi. Had he done that, Bacha Khan, Gandhi, Abul Kalam Azad, Nehru and him would've been the titans of India. Unfortunately he allied himself with the Nawabs of Central Provinces and Punjab and served the rich Muslims, instead of becoming a voice of the poor.

I think even if he was a voice for the rich, he'd have been better off seeking a United India. Separation has caused us way too much damage, more us than the Indians.

I've even have heard from my relatives that Jinnah was not proper muslim because he once entered mosque with shoes.

Even now majority of Pakistanis live in rural areas who tend to be very conservative and religious. Back then 95% of them lived in rural areas, now its more like 60-65%. UK educated secular elite buble was about to burst soon, Zia coming was inevitable.

[Peshawer_222]

why did you separate from India than?, they are also a secular country.

Hindu Domination everywhere in Jobs , Government and Policy Making . I have a few Muslim Indian friends in Malaysia . And they say Muslims live a miserable life there . Majority of the poorest are Muslims and are discriminated against . They killed people recently for eating beef . Jinnah wanted a state where Muslims were the rulers , the majority holders in jobs and government policy making .

Muslims poorest among religious groups, says NSSO survey - The Hindu

[dawn]

Bikinis aren't the founding principle of secularism but yes, Pakistanis were much more liberal before than they are now, post-Zia and 9/11.

Pakistan is a weird idea actually. I'd love for it to be secular, but you can't take the religious factor away from it. This was a country meant for 'Muslims of the British Raj', which kind of already says it's a country with a religious identity. I suppose you could equate it with Israel in that it's religious in character, but (supposed to be) secular on paper.

Pakistan was always like that before Zia. Its like when Afghanis post few pictures of women in western cloths to prove how liberal they were while ignoring ground realities. How many times we have seen same pictures posted again and again? Zia represented average Pakistani thinking.

These burger elite liberal types still exist in Pakistan, and I would say now days many times more in numbers then before.

[Porus]

Pakistan was always like that before Zia. Its like when Afghanis post few pictures of women in western cloths to prove how liberal they were while ignoring ground realities. How many times we have seen same pictures posted again and again?

There's a distinction between conservative and religious. Pakistanis may have been conservative in the past but the religiousity in a sense affirmed their conservatism. If in the past Pakistanis didn't want to send their girls to school, now they are told by these very same Mullahs that Zia concocted that 'their women are their fields, they may plow them whichever way they like' and so on, citing religious texts which affirm misogyny rather than the verses that fight against it.

I'm sure people in Kabul were liberal, while the rest of Afghanistan was conservative but even despite their conservatism there was a higher tolerance for, like you said, foreigners coming to their country. Seeing Afghan women wear skirts. That was also a time where criticising religion didn't necessarily mean death. That time's over now for both Pak and Afg.

Zia represented average Pakistani thinking.

Lol that's why he was such a low-life.

These burger elite liberal types still exist in Pakistan, and I would say now days many times more in numbers then before.

Sure, now that Raheel and Bajwa realise what a mess their institution made, they're trying to improve security, ergo slaughtering Jihadis. Of course, liberals are still marginalised and low in number relative to Pakistani population.

[Porus]

I am a big supporter of Pakistan being secular and remaining true to its founders idea of being a muslim majority population with secular ideas installed in it. When Foreigners come here most of them get a big shock as to open and welcoming Pakistani society is . This government seems to be as secular as Musharraf's .


NA adopts resolution to declare Holi, Dewali, Easter holidays - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Pakistan could be secular, says Supreme Court

Sindh Assembly adopts bill against forced religious conversions - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Pakistan: Caught Between Secularism and Theocracy | Stratfor

It might be a few decades before we become one though

Yep. Decades if we're lucky. I completely agree, I think Pakistani society is more open than say Iranian or Arab countries and I hope it can be secular, that'd be the best thing.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Samandri, generally you have decent stuff... but this one is not it. There's nothing wrong with being an elitist. You can't expect everyone to love all the poor and the destitute.

This man was a leading politician, well educated, wealthy, and was working hard to set up a new country. Of course he doesn't want to sit with the proletarians. People today don't want to. All the biggest liberals etc wouldn't sit with the proletarians (unless it's campaign season).

[Elite Pakhtun]

Correct me if I am wrong. The Pashtuns in Pakistan don't seem to respect Jinnah much, I have heard patriotic Pakistani pashtuns call him "wuch konai" and majority aren't really proud to call him baba e qaum. On the otherhand Iqbal seems to be more respected and appreciated.

In the middle class and onwards... not at all. The internet may have made it a bit more vogue, as of late. But I don't ever recall ill feelings towards Jinnah. It was always praise. He was always considered highly talented, and a person who achieved a lot for the country.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Porus, your love of your indian kin is a bit nauseating at this point. The point of Pakistan wasn't a country based on a religion, it was a country for people who followed a certain religion. The country wasn't supposed to dictate your life i.e. was supposed to be secular initially. That's what secular is. Israel is a country for jews, but 15% consider themselves atheists, and 37% agnostic. They don't have laws based on the Torah or the Jewran or whatever they believe in. As we know, things change, so did Pak's "mandate".

Jinnah would not have gotten more if he joined forces with Gandhi Nehru et al... are you kidding? This is like the thing you said about Punjabi Muslims not voting for the Muslim league i.e. just factually incorrect. There wasn't enough for all of them to be satiated with. He also probably had less control over the division than you seem to imply. It's unrealistic to think he had such power that had he decided one fine day to stay with India, we would've been part of India.

[dawn]

There's a distinction between conservative and religious. Pakistanis may have been conservative in the past but the religiousity in a sense affirmed their conservatism. If in the past Pakistanis didn't want to send their girls to school, now they are told by these very same Mullahs that Zia concocted that 'their women are their fields, they may plow them whichever way they like' and so on, citing religious texts which affirm misogyny rather than the verses that fight against it.

There was no concept of sending kids to school before British. Even after 1947 those who couldn't afford school for some reason or another instead opted for madrassas, much cheaper option for parents. As I said Pakistanis were like that before Zia.

I'm sure people in Kabul were liberal, while the rest of Afghanistan was conservative but even despite their conservatism there was a higher tolerance for, like you said, foreigners coming to their country. Seeing Afghan women wear skirts. That was also a time where criticising religion didn't necessarily mean death. That time's over now for both Pak and Afg.

I even doubt most of Kabul small population back then was like that. Now population is exploding and more conservative rural folks are moving to cities in large numbers. They were living in buble like burgers in Pakistan do in their closed housing societies. They don't represent large sections of society.

[Porus]

There was no concept of sending kids to school before British. Even after 1947 those who couldn't afford school for some reason or another instead opted for madrassas, much cheaper option for parents. As I said Pakistanis were like that before Zia.

What do you mean. People did send kids to school, and I wasn't even talking about the British era.

I even doubt most of Kabul small population back then was like that. Now population is exploding and more conservative rural folks are moving to cities in large numbers. They were living in buble like burgers in Pakistan do in their closed housing societies. They don't represent large sections of society.

Same goes for Pakistan, as people move towards the cities they will start to leave behind antiquated values.

Porus, your love of your indian kin is a bit nauseating at this point. The point of Pakistan wasn't a country based on a religion, it was a country for people who followed a certain religion. The country wasn't supposed to dictate your life i.e. was supposed to be secular initially. That's what secular is. Israel is a country for jews, but 15% consider themselves atheists, and 37% agnostic. They don't have laws based on the Torah or the Jewran or whatever they believe in. As we know, things change, so did Pak's "mandate".

It's not as easy as that. Jinnah's whole campaign was initially 'Muslims in danger', later became changed to Islam in danger. In order to safeguard Islam he suggested to create Pakistan, which was supposed to be a fortress of Islam. At the end of the day, a Pakistani basically means being Muslim; Indian or Afghan origin. I being from Punjab am the former.

Jinnah would not have gotten more if he joined forces with Gandhi Nehru et al... are you kidding? This is like the thing you said about Punjabi Muslims not voting for the Muslim league i.e. just factually incorrect. There wasn't enough for all of them to be satiated with. He also probably had less control over the division than you seem to imply. It's unrealistic to think he had such power that had he decided one fine day to stay with India, we would've been part of India.

I didn't say Punjabi Muslims didn't vote for the league, I said Muslim league did not win a clear majority, they ended up making a coalition government in the 1946 election between the Congress, Akalis and the Unionist Party. Muslim league's bases were in Sindh and Bengal; one of which is no longer with us anymore.

He's not entirely to blame, it's the fault of the British ultimately that we're two different nations. But for him to campaign for the rights of Muslims by separating them from their historical kin, and playing into the same communal politics that the British had set the foundations of their imperialism on, was a **** move on Jinnah's part. He should've stood by the Muslims as one of many secular Muslims, like Abul Kalam and Bacha Khan.

[Porus]

This man was a leading politician, well educated, wealthy, and was working hard to set up a new country. Of course he doesn't want to sit with the proletarians. People today don't want to. All the biggest liberals etc wouldn't sit with the proletarians (unless it's campaign season).

Lol, then clearly he cared less. Gandhi did it. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan did it. They dressed humbly, one of them is revered as the symbol of peace for generations to come, the other is still respected by many Afghans and Indians.

[dawn]

[MENTION=18484]Porus[/MENTION] you reliaze British punjab was non-muslim majority for most part? If anything only in 1941 census greater punjab was 51% muslim. Punjabi muslims who made majority in western punjab were not voting for Congress. Punjabi muslims supported either unionsts who for all intent and purposes were secular party dominated and funded by punjabi muslims and Muslim League.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

basically the only way children in Pakistan can love their nation and revere their forged icons is through forced indoctrination rather than willful and natural respect and admiration.

That says a lot; on the Kim Jong Il level.