i feel that advaniji was infulaced by usa,indian's did not accept the partition how did they accept jinnah--jinnah as a secular.Jinnah is communalist for india for indian.He divide india that ravan did't do that karna will not do but jinnah will do
Ofcourse, peace is the need of the hour between India and Pakistan and there are various ways to achieve that. Just by praising Jinnah, we are not going to achieve anything. For peace to be everlasting, we need to take some bold steps on the Kashmir front.
I think Mr Advani visiting the Masoleum of Jinnah (the first by an Indian leader) is itself not proper. He should have elicited the views of his partymen and cadres who have strong anti-Pakistan views. Since he is a representative of his Party, he should have sought their permission before going all out in appreciation of Jinnah. Instead, he just did the opposite by praising Jinnah and then compelling his party members to endorse his views. This is not correct.
Jinnah will always be viewed as a villain in India since he was in the forefront of dividing our country on religious lines which has not happened anywhere else in the World. To appreciate such a person for the sake of peace is something very difficult to digest.
hello sir ur this feature is excellent.why jinnah turned could have been told by him.well he is dead and dont forget he was in movement of india independence.this is well written article and i would like 2 congratulate u hope the guys in politics can be shown this so that they could come out of their image 2 understand things.politicians r the biggest actors arent they?
RE:rightly said
by Samir Siddiqui on Jun 14, 2005 12:52 AM Permalink
In this hue and cry about the secular credentials of Mr. Jinnah it has been overlooked that the creation of Pakistan was brought about by a movement of largely secular Muslims; as the Muslim League itself comprised of the Muslim intelligentsia and the feudal class. It did not represent the Ulema or the religious leadership at that time. It would seem as a revelation to many Hindus today but the truth is that partition of India was opposed not only by many Hindus but even the Muslim religious leadership at that time opposed it. The Darul ul Uloom at Deoband,the Islamic Centre of Bareily as well as the Jamiat e Ulama e Hind were in the forefront to avoid this travesty, however it was indeed the Muslim fear of being swamped by the Hindus culturally and politically which swayed the Muslim masses towards the League. A similar case in point today is the Iraqi Sunni minority which seems to be going through a similar crisis and which may soon start demanding a separate nation if it becomes clear to it that Iraq may have slipped from its grasp permanently. As an aside: the father of Maulana Fazlur Rehman the opposition leader of Pakistan is the son of a prominent leader of the Jamiat.
There is a basic flaw in your arguements. There was no freedom movement of Pakistan. what does author mean by asking pakistan to accept "our national movement". The fact is before 1947 it was India's freedom movement, freedom movement of Akhand India. Bhagat Singh, Bose they all were fighting for Akhand India. Not for Pakistan. So where does the question of our accepting Pakistan freedom movement arises?
I'll agree that it was not only Jinnah but many more on India side who are responsible for partition but unfortunately we in India blame him only. But is there any body in Pak who also lament for partition as RSS lament? RSS is fundamentalist organisation but is there any fundamentalist organisation in Pakistan also who is perturbed on partition?
We fail to understand that by creation of Pakistan Islamic world fullfilled their long cherished wish of converting a secular land into a Land Of Islam and that is why they hounded out Hindus. Same thing happened in Kashmir vally n Bangladesh.
Peace process is nothing but a eyewash. If it is a timepass then it is OK. But let us not befool ourself. Peace cannot be permanent between a secular society and Islamic society i.e PAK
to treat a wound...we have to apply the medicine directly..open the wounds and treat it..we are right now using painkillers only...and we have to be broadminded enough to accept that our leaders were not perfect and that as much Jinnah had a role in the creation of Pakistan..our own Congress leaders of that time, all respectable figures, had an equally important role in the division on this one nation.
well no one wants to read a bad history of their own nation.what to do?
sai, you are right...but you have to be more frank and give more solutions..what do you think of Mirwaiz farooq's solution ..a united kashmir state...
It is difficult to comprehend what the author wants to convey. Many journalists often go for cumbersome bombastic phrases and confusing mix-ups, rather than intelligible simple ones which will forthright convey the intended meanings. May be my IQ is going down with my age!
Sir, the best part of Advani's trip to Pak was that he made it a point to worship in a Hindu temple there and with whatever reference he made to secularism, he delivered one message: Pak should be secular (and not "pseudo secular"). Pak has a bad track record of not adequately protecting all kinds of minorities. Attacking Shia muslim mosques is a regular happening. But then, what happened in Gujarat to innocent Muslims after whoever set the train on fire shows that we are not exactly protecting our minorities adequately. SM Hussain Hyderabad, India
No matter who gets killed/maimed it is reprehensible, be they the 59 innocent (mostly) women and children, be it the 1000+ who died after the train carnage, be it the 400,000+ who have been ethnically cleansed from the Kashmir Valley.
What is dumb is if we use our biases to view selectively the atrocities against Indians by Indians, in India -- bigoted religious views and activities are the culprits and all those so called religious leaders who fan the fire of hatred for vested interests. So please do not talk about minorities and majorities, start talking about Bharathiyas as our President says! Nation and its citizens come first before your religion, which is nothing more that a personal preference! Snap out of your prejudice.
sir, you had beautifully tried to say that whaever Advani said in regard with Jinnah was his own view and about Jinna it was the Time which made him so controvesial for India.
I would like to say only one thing and that is The BJP is known for the Party of litterate not of those who cann`t understand any thing and believe in following any one.
For long, BJP and especially this Mr. Advani has always said and held JINNAH responsible for the Partition. His sudden change from his stance has surprised all and ofcourse led to a heated debate becaouse, what i think Jinnah and Pandit Nehru Both were ressponsible for the partition and the foundation of pakistan was only for the Muslims not for the Hindu, here i would like to appreciate Nehru that he didn`t made any such step to make India only for HIndu.
But most of us agree with this that if it would have been done or no such indiscremination had been done between Hindu or Muslims the condition of india has not been like this.
today what we see that whenever there is a mascarce, some muslims outfit took responsible for that proudly and many of the muslim leader appreciate that as they say in India they are not safe. How?
