"Is This Andhra Pradesh Or Pak?" BJP Demands Renaming Of "Jinnah Tower"

[MenInG]

Amaravati: Several BJP leaders, including its national secretary Sunil Deodhar and workers were taken into police custody when they sought to march to the Jinnah Tower Centre in Guntur on Tuesday evening demanding that it be renamed after former President APJ Abdul Kalam.
After a meeting of the party's youth wing BJYM, the BJP leaders and workers tried to take out a protest march to Jinnah Tower but police foiled it and detained them.

For the past few months, the BJP and other Hindu organisations have been demanding that the historic Jinnah Tower be renamed but the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government paid no heed.

On Tuesday, Mr Deodhar, the co-in-charge of the party for the state, was in the city and sought to lead the protest.

The BJP demanded that the Jinnah Tower be renamed as A P J Abdul Kalam Tower.

BJP Rajya Sabha member GVL Narasimha Rao condemned the high-handed behaviour of the police against his party leaders and their detention.

In a tweet, he wondered "if we are in AP or Pakistan".

State BJP president Somu Veerraju said not only their party but also the people demanded that the tower be renamed.

PromotedListen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

He said there was widespread support for the demand to remove Jinnah's name and the tower be renamed after Abdul Kalam. "The state government cannot adopt an oppressive stance over our demand," Mr Veerraju added.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bjp...s-detained-3006781#pfrom=home-ndtv_topstories

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

You can surely expect Bhartiya Jaahil Party leaders to come up with statements like these on a daily basis now.

 

[DRsohail]

This will be very unfortunate. When I first came to know about this name it gave me very good feelings and I thought India is more tolerant but may be I was wrong.

 

[DRsohail]

You can surely expect Bhartiya Jaahil Party leaders to come up with statements like these on a daily basis now.

This will be very unfortunate. When I first came to know about this name it gave me very good feelings and I thought India is more tolerant but may be I was wrong and it was when I was in school. Imagine such things matter allot.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Who is jinna? Nothing to do with India.
Let's rename it Abdul Kalam Tower.

 

[Rajdeep]

Do we have Nehru or Gandhi park in Pakistan?

Why should we have Jinnah park in India when he wanted nothing to do with India and wanted a seperate country?

Also, people seem to be not reading this line from OP - "He said there was widespread support for the demand to remove Jinnah's name and the tower be renamed after Abdul Kalam"

BJP is absolutely correct here.

 

[pillionrider]

From Wiki

Jinnah Tower is a landmark monument in the city of Guntur in Andhra Pradesh. It is named after the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and is located on Mahatma Gandhi Road of the city

Since it's a pre-Independence structure, again from Wiki,

According to the State Archaeology Department, the tower could be brought under the list of protected monuments if it has history of more than 60 years.

Not sure what the rules on protected monuments are. Can they be renamed?

If Pakistan has any statue or monument in honour of Gandhi still remaining, this shouldn't be renamed as a reciprocal courtesy. Else, they are welcome to rename it as they choose

 

[DRsohail]

Do we have Nehru or Gandhi park in Pakistan?

Why should we have Jinnah park in India when he wanted nothing to do with India and wanted a seperate country?

Also, people seem to be not reading this line from OP - "He said there was widespread support for the demand to remove Jinnah's name and the tower be renamed after Abdul Kalam"

BJP is absolutely correct here.

You can do whatever you want. It would not affect what we think of Jinnah but I don't think so that the particular name is giving any sort of damage to India but its the other way around .It just it changed my thought process about India some years ago when I was a school student. I hope Pakistan was tolerant enough to have such names after Gandhi at least.

 

[MP2011]

You can surely expect Bhartiya Jaahil Party leaders to come up with statements like these on a daily basis now.

Or Bharat Jalao Party.

They are so adept in raking up irrelevant issues like this and let their gullible devotees forget all about their daily sufferings due to their idiotic policies.

 

[Rajdeep]

You can do whatever you want. It would not affect what we think of Jinnah but I don't think so that the particular name is giving any sort of damage to India but its the other way around .It just it changed my thought process about India some years ago when I was a school student. I hope Pakistan was tolerant enough to have such names after Gandhi at least.

Yeah but the fact is Pakistan is not tolerant enough to have street names under Gandhi. So India is also under no compulsion to have Jinnah tower. Tolerance and respect work both ways.

And this has nothing to do with religion. We have many Indian muslims we are proud off and APJ Abdul Kalam was one of them. There is no harm to rename the tower name under him.

Remember during BLM movements, so many statues of white elitists are removed from Europe? They were also just statues and was not doing any harm. But its called course correction of historic blunders. India is doing the same and I see no issues at all.

 

[DRsohail]

Yeah but the fact is Pakistan is not tolerant enough to have street names under Gandhi. So India is also under no compulsion to have Jinnah tower. Tolerance and respect work both ways.

And this has nothing to do with religion. We have many Indian muslims we are proud off and APJ Abdul Kalam was one of them. There is no harm to rename the tower name under him.

Remember during BLM movements, so many statues of white elitists are removed from Europe? They were also just statues and was not doing any harm. But its called course correction of historic blunders. India is doing the same and I see no issues at all.

You are again taking it wrongly, If Pakistan is not tolerant enough to have such names which I believe is true then what about India if they do the same. Let me tell you again it makes no difference to us as Pakistani and Jinnah followers.

 

[Hitman]

I’m surprised it hasn’t been renamed yet.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Yeah but the fact is Pakistan is not tolerant enough to have street names under Gandhi. So India is also under no compulsion to have Jinnah tower. Tolerance and respect work both ways.

And this has nothing to do with religion. We have many Indian muslims we are proud off and APJ Abdul Kalam was one of them. There is no harm to rename the tower name under him.

Remember during BLM movements, so many statues of white elitists are removed from Europe? They were also just statues and was not doing any harm. But its called course correction of historic blunders. India is doing the same and I see no issues at all.

Bhaijaan you should have googled it first before bringing this up. I was pretty sure I will find at least one such street after googling it. And I found this article.

Karachi’s Gandhi street offers walk through pre-partition memories

While there has been a name-changing spree in neighboring India, a street in Pakistan’s port city of Karachi is still named after Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, keeping a window open into pre-partition memories.

On the occasion of the 74th death anniversary of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, known worldwide as Mahatma Gandhi, residents vow to protect the historical identity of their neighborhood.

Gandhi, a towering figure of South Asian politics, was assassinated on Jan. 30, 1948 by Hindu extremist Nathuram Godse, who apparently objected to his stand against the communal riots that gripped India after the partition in 1947.

Located in the Karachi South District, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi street, commonly known as Mohan Road, is a 500-meter thoroughfare currently serving as a bustling market visited by thousands of customers each day.

Its eastern entrance, which touches the noisy M.A (Mohammad Ali) Jinnah Road, is commonly known as Tire Market because of several small and large tire shops. Whereas, the western mouth of the street opens towards the famous Burns Road and is dotted with dozens of bookshops. This portion is known as the Urdu bazaar or the Book Market.

In between lie several colonial-era buildings, with most still named after their original builders, like the Aruan Building, Mukhi Mansion, and Momanath Building.

Aluminum-embossed pictures of Gandhi can be spotted even from a distance on the balconies of several buildings, reminding visitors of the neighborhood's historic value.

Most of buildings, nonetheless, currently present a picture of apathy, not only due to the ravages of time, but also neglect of their supposed benefactors.

In many cases, neither occupants nor owners worry about the maintenance of these old-styled buildings dating back to the 1930s, due to rental disputes.

No more name-changing

In the middle of the road, it is bisected by Temple Road, named for its Hindu temple, along with the Sikh temple Ratan Talao Gurdwara, another pre-partition building that is also in ruins nowadays.

Hunched on a plastic chair, Mohammad Feroz, who has been running a tire shop at Gandhi street for over 40 years, wants the government to protect the historical value of the neighborhood.

"You may disagree with his (Gandhi) political philosophy, but he undoubtedly is a historic figure. It’s either Quaid-i-Azam (Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan) or Gandhi, they should be treated with respect in both countries," Feroz told Anadolu Agency, referring to some Hindu nationalist groups demanding the removal of Jinnah’s statue from Ali Garh Muslim University, India.

A plaque reading "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Street," which only a few years ago had stood at the eastern entrance of the street, is no longer there.

Officially, however, it is still named after Ghandi in the city's municipal records.

"We will never want this name to be changed," Rab Nawaz, who runs a small mechanical shop in the area, told Anadolu Agency.

"It's Mohan Road and will remain the same for us. We have no issue with that," Nawaz, whose father started the business here in 1955, went on to say.

Feroz Ali, another elderly resident, demanded that the plaque be returned, highlighting the street's name on both entrances.

"Not only this, but no other names should be changed. If a hospital or educational institution is built by a Hindu or a Sikh, it should remain after his or her name," he told Anadolu Agency.

Muslim Gandhis

Apart from Gandhi Street, Karachi is dotted with several roads, which still bear pre-partition names, mainly in the southern district, also known as Old Karachi. They include Ramsawmi, Nanak Warra, Gru Mandir (temple), Hari Das Street, Bohra Pir, New Charlie, Delhi Colony, Ratan Talao, Empress Market, Mithadar, Hindu Gymkhana, Aram or Ram Bagh, Burns Road etcetera.

So much so, a number of restaurants and bakeries have been named after Indian cities, mainly by those who migrated from India in 1947. Bombay Bakers in Hyderabad city, located some 165 kilometers (102 miles) from Karachi, is famous for its special cakes as hundreds visit the eatery every day to taste its delectable dessert.

In Karachi, the Delhi Kali Restaurant, Bombay Hotel, Dhaka Sweets, Anbala Bakers, Amritsar Sweets, and other eateries attract thousands of foodies each day.

Mohatta Palace, the city's main museum, is named after Hindu businessman Shivratan Chandraratan Mohatta, who built it as a summer home in 1927.

However to the surprise of many, Gandhi Mart, a local Karachi grocery store often assumed to bear the name of the Indian leader, has nothing to do with Mahatma Gandhi. It is named after Muslim family with the same last name, enjoying the publicity afforded by the common misconception.

"It's our family name after the neighborhood where our forefathers would live in Indian Gujrat," Danish Gandhi, the owner of the mart, said, speaking to Anadolu Agency.

"Mostly, people mistook us for the Indian or Hindu Gandhis," said another young Gandhi.

"Sometimes, they get surprised when they see a Gandhi offering (Muslim) prayers in a corner of the mart," he said, smiling.

Gandhi said neither he nor the rest of his family have ever faced any trouble because of this name and have no plans to change it.

"I rather enjoy it when I see people curious (about the name)."

Gandhi and Karachi

Gandhi has long been a part of Karachi's cultural life. Located in the heart of the city, the Karachi Zoological Garden was once known as Gandhi Garden. The site had long been a hub of political and social gatherings.

According to Abdul Ghafoor Khatri, a Karachi-based author who often writes about culture and heritage, the garden was named after Gandhi in 1934. Previously, it had been known as Victoria Garden.

In 1953, the venue was named Karachi Zoological Garden through a resolution adopted by the municipality, Khatri told Anadolu Agency.

A plaque at the entrance of the colonial-era building of the Karachi Chambers of Commerce said it was laid by Gandhi in July 1934.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacif...-walk-through-pre-partition-memories/2489147#

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Wax Statue in Islamabad.

 

[ElRaja]

Wax Statue in Islamabad.

they made it look like jinnah was abt to start body popping and gandhi was like i wanna try too.

 

[Rajdeep]

Wax Statue in Islamabad.

We also have Jinnah's statue in Aligarh Muslim university.

 

[MenInG]

Just a generic trend in BJP India - nothing too surprising.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Right wing hindus are falling into the trap of rewriting history.

Remember there was never a united India that was ruled by 'Indians', and Jinnah did not break apart any of a mythical India.

Jinnah fought for the removal of the British from ALL of the lands that now comprise India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The BJP and their ilk would not have existed were it not for the efforts of Jinnah and others in the freedom struggle.

He should be recognised as a hero in India.

Gandhi and Nehru on the other hand actively worked to destroy the creation of Pakistan. It shows the big hearts of the Pakistanis that they are able to acknowledge their involvement in the overall freedom struggle despite their efforts against the creation of Pakistan.

 

[Rajdeep]

Right wing hindus are falling into the trap of rewriting history.

Remember there was never a united India that was ruled by 'Indians', and Jinnah did not break apart any of a mythical India.

Jinnah fought for the removal of the British from ALL of the lands that now comprise India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The BJP and their ilk would not have existed were it not for the efforts of Jinnah and others in the freedom struggle.

He should be recognised as a hero in India.

Gandhi and Nehru on the other hand actively worked to destroy the creation of Pakistan. It shows the big hearts of the Pakistanis that they are able to acknowledge their involvement in the overall freedom struggle despite their efforts against the creation of Pakistan.

We can discuss about who did or did not fight in freedom struggle later but its a fact that Jinnah wanted a separate state based on religion and that is how Pakistan was formed. A partition where thousands died and rendered homeless. I see absolutely no reason why should there be a statue of him in a country from which he wanted a separation.

Will Pakistan have Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's statue?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

We can discuss about who did or did not fight in freedom struggle later but its a fact that Jinnah wanted a separate state based on religion and that is how Pakistan was formed. A partition where thousands died and rendered homeless. I see absolutely no reason why should there be a statue of him in a country from which he wanted a separation.

Will Pakistan have Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's statue?

Modern India came into existence after Pakistan.

Pakistan was formed from 'British India' as was modern India.

Jinnah fought to remove the Brits from what is now Modern India and Pakistan, this includes Andhra Pradesh.

So there is no comparison with the Bangladesh situation, although from a personal perspective I would have no issue with a statue of Mujibur Rahman.

 

[Hextro]

I doubt anyone cares about this. Go ahead, change the name of something no one cares or knows about if it makes you sleep better at night.

I can't believe these people are making such a fuss over a small tower's name. What next will these people start losing sleep over a restaurants name?

 

[Major]

As a pakistani, i would rather stay quiet. Because we are no better.

Gandhi ended up dieing for Pakistan when division of assets were not being obliged on the agreed amount. The guy does a bhook hartal and has one of his own country man killing him.

What pakistan did? In our curriculum he is protrayed as a bad and negative person.......

Thus, both countries are no different. We have had parks named after gandhi that were renamed

 

[Mamoon]

As a pakistani, i would rather stay quiet. Because we are no better.

Gandhi ended up dieing for Pakistan when division of assets were not being obliged on the agreed amount. The guy does a bhook hartal and has one of his own country man killing him.

What pakistan did? In our curriculum he is protrayed as a bad and negative person.......

Thus, both countries are no different. We have had parks named after gandhi that were renamed

Gandhi was a greater leader than Jinnah and is also more respected in the West.

 

[Major]

We can discuss about who did or did not fight in freedom struggle later but its a fact that Jinnah wanted a separate state based on religion and that is how Pakistan was formed. A partition where thousands died and rendered homeless. I see absolutely no reason why should there be a statue of him in a country from which he wanted a separation.

Will Pakistan have Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's statue?

Jinnah was a member of congress and initially he was not fighting for seperate country for muslims but a comebined india without the british. Jinnah would ask for a seperate muslim sttae much later.

He had his contributions in getting rid of the english, he was one of the very few educated few. Had Muslim league not emerged as a party, it would had been difficult getting rid of the british.

He was a sane voice in the protests especially when gandhi was trying to make the whole thing communal during khilafat movement while Quaid kept it much logical.

You can hate Quaid all you want, but atleast dont take credit away from him for pushing the british out.

 

[Mamoon]

Right wing hindus are falling into the trap of rewriting history.

Remember there was never a united India that was ruled by 'Indians', and Jinnah did not break apart any of a mythical India.

Jinnah fought for the removal of the British from ALL of the lands that now comprise India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The BJP and their ilk would not have existed were it not for the efforts of Jinnah and others in the freedom struggle.

He should be recognised as a hero in India.

Gandhi and Nehru on the other hand actively worked to destroy the creation of Pakistan. It shows the big hearts of the Pakistanis that they are able to acknowledge their involvement in the overall freedom struggle despite their efforts against the creation of Pakistan.

This is a very simplistic argument to explain why Indians should respect and revere Jinnah.

He wanted the British to give up control of India but he also actively vouched for separate Hindu and Muslim states.

Therefore, as a Hindu-majority country, the republic of India, founded on 15 August 1947 has absolutely no reason to respect Jinnah.

He wasn’t the only one to fight the British rule but he was at the forefront when it comes to proposing separate Hindu and Muslim states.

Anyway, Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory was disproved after the independence of East Pakistan and the subsequent formation of Bangladesh.

 

[Mamoon]

Jinnah was a member of congress and initially he was not fighting for seperate country for muslims but a comebined india without the british. Jinnah would ask for a seperate muslim sttae much later.

He had his contributions in getting rid of the english, he was one of the very few educated few. Had Muslim league not emerged as a party, it would had been difficult getting rid of the british.

He was a sane voice in the protests especially when gandhi was trying to make the whole thing communal during khilafat movement while Quaid kept it much logical.

You can hate Quaid all you want, but atleast dont take credit away from him for pushing the british out.

Jinnah is portrayed as a mythical, heroic figure in Pakistan but the truth is never black and white. He was neither a hero nor a villain; he had his strengths and weaknesses like other politicians and he contradicted himself on many occasions.

He was also idealistic which is why his Two Nation Theory was disproved over the years.

 

[Major]

Gandhi was a greater leader than Jinnah and is also more respected in the West.

If gandhi was any great, he would had not digulged in khilafat movement and made it into a communal thing.

Khilafat movement was the exact thing that sir syed would had avoid because of its stupidity and Quaid also rightly avoided it.

Gandhi should had known better in that case.

You cant compare both, because both of them had different goals and by doing a comparison one ends up insulting the other. Both were great with respect towards their mission.

Gandhi had to bare racism and struglle for its people. He was against violence but he was again abit illogical when it came to the communal issues. Gandhi couldnt see that muslims, hindus and silhs living together was a great disaster because of how each others religion is intolerant towards other. Foeget muslims and hindus, sikhs should have one of the most tolerating religion yet they were targetted during indira gandhis govt.

Quaid was much more logical towards his own goal. He succeeded in carving out a country but it was up to the people after how to rule it.

As for the respect part, even the likes of churchill, jefferson and washington are respected in west. But we all know how racists churchill was and how washington and jefferson kept slaves.

Being respected in west depends upon how your media protrays your heroes. Pakistani media is a joke, they cant do zilch in protraying their leaders and thus our leader is an unknowm entity worldwide

 

[Mamoon]

If gandhi was any great, he would had not digulged in khilafat movement and made it into a communal thing.

Khilafat movement was the exact thing that sir syed would had avoid because of its stupidity and Quaid also rightly avoided it.

Gandhi should had known better in that case.

You cant compare both, because both of them had different goals and by doing a comparison one ends up insulting the other. Both were great with respect towards their mission.

Gandhi had to bare racism and struglle for its people. He was against violence but he was again abit illogical when it came to the communal issues. Gandhi couldnt see that muslims, hindus and silhs living together was a great disaster because of how each others religion is intolerant towards other. Foeget muslims and hindus, sikhs should have one of the most tolerating religion yet they were targetted during indira gandhis govt.

Quaid was much more logical towards his own goal. He succeeded in carving out a country but it was up to the people after how to rule it.

As for the respect part, even the likes of churchill, jefferson and washington are respected in west. But we all know how racists churchill was and how washington and jefferson kept slaves.

Being respected in west depends upon how your media protrays your heroes. Pakistani media is a joke, they cant do zilch in protraying their leaders and thus our leader is an unknowm entity worldwide

Gandhi was no saint, he was a very stout politician but he was a better leader than Jinnah because he was able to carve out a better image for himself.

This is why he is more respected in the west because he did not symbolize the type of identity crisis that Jinnah caught himself in.

Jinnah on the other hand was never successful in shedding his Anglophile image. He greatly admired the British culture and values and adopted a fully British lifestyle. He also ended up marrying a non-Muslim which irked a lot of Muslims.

This is where Jinnah failed in comparison to Gandhi. As far as logic is concerned, Jinnah started out with logic but ended up as an idealistic politician with a one-track mind. His insistence on the Two Nation Theory was illogical and idealistic, he never foresaw that it was not going to last in the long-term.

 

[Major]

Jinnah is portrayed as a mythical, heroic figure in Pakistan but the truth is never black and white. He was neither a hero nor a villain; he had his strengths and weaknesses like other politicians and he contradicted himself on many occasions.

He was also idealistic which is why his Two Nation Theory was disproved over the years.

Come on, how can you not consider him a hero? If you want to talk about oger rated figures than Allama Iqbal has to be up there being the most over rated. But Quaid was a sane voice.

The only sane voice we had. Had it not been for the Quaid, we would had never gotten Pakistan. It was impossible. During the same time in Burma, the muslims were desperate to join Pakistan but they couldnt as they had no leader to represent them.

If we had allam iqbal leading this campaign we would had failed.

Quiad and the Agha khan are the two people that should be revered and not iqbal.

You cant claim two nationa theory being a faliure based on Bangladesh, because two nation theory was not on the basis of communal. East Pakistan formation was communal.

Pakistan wasnt made on communal basis. It was just that the muslim identity was used to rally around on the nationalism.

You can say that the nationalism of east and west pakistan failed. We failed to adopt a common national identity. But you cant say two nationa theory failed.

Our national identity that was made out did not include bengalis in that

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This is a very simplistic argument to explain why Indians should respect and revere Jinnah.

He wanted the British to give up control of India but he also actively vouched for separate Hindu and Muslim states.

Therefore, as a Hindu-majority country, the republic of India, founded on 15 August 1947 has absolutely no reason to respect Jinnah.

He wasn’t the only one to fight the British rule but he was at the forefront when it comes to proposing separate Hindu and Muslim states.

Anyway, Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory was disproved after the independence of East Pakistan and the subsequent formation of Bangladesh.

They should respect him as his struggle was also theirs, no need to revere him though.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Come on, how can you not consider him a hero? If you want to talk about oger rated figures than Allama Iqbal has to be up there being the most over rated. But Quaid was a sane voice.

The only sane voice we had. Had it not been for the Quaid, we would had never gotten Pakistan. It was impossible. During the same time in Burma, the muslims were desperate to join Pakistan but they couldnt as they had no leader to represent them.

If we had allam iqbal leading this campaign we would had failed.

Quiad and the Agha khan are the two people that should be revered and not iqbal.

You cant claim two nationa theory being a faliure based on Bangladesh, because two nation theory was not on the basis of communal. East Pakistan formation was communal.

Pakistan wasnt made on communal basis. It was just that the muslim identity was used to rally around on the nationalism.

You can say that the nationalism of east and west pakistan failed. We failed to adopt a common national identity. But you cant say two nationa theory failed.

Our national identity that was made out did not include bengalis in that

lol at Iqbal being overrated.

He is arguably the greatest Islamic poet/philosopher of the last 300 years.

 

[Major]

Gandhi was no saint, he was a very stout politician but he was a better leader than Jinnah because he was able to carve out a better image for himself.

This is why he is more respected in the west because he did not symbolize the type of identity crisis that Jinnah caught himself in.

Jinnah on the other hand was never successful in shedding his Anglophile image. He greatly admired the British culture and values and adopted a fully British lifestyle. He also ended up marrying a non-Muslim which irked a lot of Muslims.

This is where Jinnah failed in comparison to Gandhi. As far as logic is concerned, Jinnah started out with logic but ended up as an idealistic politician with a one-track mind. His insistence on the Two Nation Theory was illogical and idealistic, he never foresaw that it was not going to last in the long-term.

If you think two nation theory failed than why did kalat join pakistan when no one forced them too?

Why did the mulims of fata decided to help the kashmiris when our army was asleep. Those fata muslims had no reason to get involved in that war against hari sing, yet they did and were able to capture upto srinagar.

The nationalism failed, in our national ideology bengalis werent there. Two nation theory didnt fail.

Had the national identity been carved up in which we included bengalis, we wouldnt had lost east pakistan.

 

[Major]

lol at Iqbal being overrated.

He is arguably the greatest Islamic poet/philosopher of the last 300 years.

Sorry to say, but he is one of the most over rated people in our history. The only reason he is admired is because he was a theologian, something which quaid, aga khan and sir syed were not.

He was a philosopher, but not some one who had done proper research and proven his theories by research.

 

[Rajdeep]

Jinnah was a member of congress and initially he was not fighting for seperate country for muslims but a comebined india without the british. Jinnah would ask for a seperate muslim sttae much later.

He had his contributions in getting rid of the english, he was one of the very few educated few. Had Muslim league not emerged as a party, it would had been difficult getting rid of the british.

He was a sane voice in the protests especially when gandhi was trying to make the whole thing communal during khilafat movement while Quaid kept it much logical.

You can hate Quaid all you want, but atleast dont take credit away from him for pushing the british out.

I have absolutely no love for Gandhi at all but all I am saying is there is no incentive of having a statue of Jinnah in India when he himself wanted to part away from it.

I am neither taking away his credit of freedom struggle but it is what followed after British left is what I am talking about.

After British left, Jinnah wanted a seperate country for Muslim majority Indians and that is how Pakistan was formed. You got a seperate country...so why should there be a statue of him in India still? Would Pakistan have statue of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman?

Also, I dont hate Jinnah at all. Infact I strongly believe in his right wing ideology. Just like he wanted a seperate country for muslims, I (and BJP) also want a seperate country for hindus. But we are termed as conmunal whenever we say this. What we are oppossed against is this hypocracy based on which India and Pakistan was created and Gandhi/Nehru was mostly responsible for it. Present day BJP govt is just trying to rectify those errors which frankly should have happened long time ago.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Gandhi was no saint, he was a very stout politician but he was a better leader than Jinnah because he was able to carve out a better image for himself.

This is why he is more respected in the west because he did not symbolize the type of identity crisis that Jinnah caught himself in.

Jinnah on the other hand was never successful in shedding his Anglophile image. He greatly admired the British culture and values and adopted a fully British lifestyle. He also ended up marrying a non-Muslim which irked a lot of Muslims.

This is where Jinnah failed in comparison to Gandhi. As far as logic is concerned, Jinnah started out with logic but ended up as an idealistic politician with a one-track mind. His insistence on the Two Nation Theory was illogical and idealistic, he never foresaw that it was not going to last in the long-term.

Gandhi was respected in the west but murdered by his co-religionist and countryman. That fake respect from the west (largely to promote non violence against colonialism) didn't get him anywhere. His legacy is now being torn apart in the west due to BLM.

He should be respected by Pakistanis for his efforts but he is not as universally acclaimed ( even inside India) as you would believe.

His racist views are now being analysed in further detail. It won't be long

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Gandhi was respected in the west but murdered by his co-religionist and countryman. That fake respect from the west (largely to promote non violence against colonialism) didn't get him anywhere. His legacy is now being torn apart in the west due to BLM.

He should be respected by Pakistanis for his efforts but he is not as universally acclaimed ( even inside India) as you would believe.

His racist views are now being analysed in further detail. It won't be long before he is fully cancelled in the west, so we cannot use western views as a barometer

edited

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I have absolutely no love for Gandhi at all but all I am saying is there is no incentive of having a statue of Jinnah in India when he himself wanted to part away from it.

I am neither taking away his credit of freedom struggle but it is what followed after British left is what I am talking about.

After British left, Jinnah wanted a seperate country for Muslim majority Indians and that is how Pakistan was formed. You got a seperate country...so why should there be a statue of him in India still? Would Pakistan have statue of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman?

Also, I dont hate Jinnah at all. Infact I strongly believe in his right wing ideology. Just like he wanted a seperate country for muslims, I (and BJP) also want a seperate country for hindus. But we are termed as conmunal whenever we say this. What we are oppossed against is this hypocracy based on which India and Pakistan was created and Gandhi/Nehru was mostly responsible for it. Present day BJP govt is just trying to rectify those errors which frankly should have happened long time ago.

Some subtle differences that make a significant impact to what you are saying.

He wanted a separate country while the British were occupying India, after receiving no assurances from Hindus that they would be protected. Pakistan was created from British India and was not separated from the territories that now comprise modern India.

His vision of Hindus pulling the carpet from under muslims is coming true. After decades of so called secularism you also want to pull the carpet from under them and make them subservient to Hindus.

 

[Major]

Gandhi was respected in the west but murdered by his co-religionist and countryman. That fake respect from the west (largely to promote non violence against colonialism) didn't get him anywhere. His legacy is now being torn apart in the west due to BLM.

He should be respected by Pakistanis for his efforts but he is not as universally acclaimed ( even inside India) as you would believe.

His racist views are now being analysed in further detail. It won't be long

If blm are tearing him part than thats hypocritical. Didnt martin lutherking jr idolized gandhis peace mantra?

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]

Two Nation Theory (TNT) failed with the independence of East Pakistan. However, the failure of TNT doesn’t disprove that Muslims and Hindus would not have been able to coexist peacefully in a United India.

Muslims never do well under someone else’s rule, and once the Mughal era ended and the British were able to succeed in the divide and rule policy, there was no turning back.

Partition was done on irrational grounds and the failure of the British economy after WWII and the flop TNT were the major driving forces - it ensured that subcontinent would remain a destabilized region for eternity.

Ideally, the Indian subcontinent should have been divided into several small autonomous country like Europe. That would have been a more natural and rational division.

The fundamental flaw with TNT was that it defined Muslim culture with Islam. Religion is part of a culture but it doesn’t define a culture. People from the same religion cannot coexist peacefully if there are sociocultural differences.

This is what Jinnah and Iqbal failed to take into consideration. They assumed that Muslim unity would overcome cultural differences but they were wrong.

The systematic discrimination towards East Pakistan proved that west Pakistan never considered Bengalis equal to them even though they were also muslims.

Both Jinnah and Iqbal are overrated; the true great Muslim leader was Syed Ahmad because he was perhaps the only and certainly the first Muslim leader who realized that education is the only way forward, not poetry and idealism.

He was born in the wrong era - if he was alive from 1920s to 1940s, things would have been much better for the Muslim League.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

If blm are tearing him part than thats hypocritical. Didnt martin lutherking jr idolized gandhis peace mantra?

His "racist" views were not spoken of much during MLK time.

I don't think their treatment of gandhi is correct by the way, my point is that we cannot use western thoughts as a barometer to measure subcontinental leaders.

 

[Major]

[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]

Two Nation Theory (TNT) failed with the independence of East Pakistan. However, the failure of TNT doesn’t disprove that Muslims and Hindus would not have been able to coexist peacefully in a United India.

Muslims never do well under someone else’s rule, and once the Mughal era ended and the British were able to succeed in the divide and rule policy, there was no turning back.

Partition was done on irrational grounds and the failure of the British economy after WWII and the flop TNT were the major driving forces - it ensured that subcontinent would remain a destabilized region for eternity.

Ideally, the Indian subcontinent should have been divided into several small autonomous country like Europe. That would have been a more natural and rational division.

The fundamental flaw with TNT was that it defined Muslim culture with Islam. Religion is part of a culture but it doesn’t define a culture. People from the same religion cannot coexist peacefully if there are sociocultural differences.

This is what Jinnah and Iqbal failed to take into consideration. They assumed that Muslim unity would overcome cultural differences but they were wrong.

The systematic discrimination towards East Pakistan proved that west Pakistan never considered Bengalis equal to them even though they were also muslims.

Both Jinnah and Iqbal are overrated; the true great Muslim leader was Syed Ahmad because he was perhaps the only and certainly the first Muslim leader who realized that education is the only way forward, not poetry and idealism.

He was born in the wrong era - if he was alive from 1920s to 1940s, things would have been much better for the Muslim League.

If we had more countries been made on the basis of ethinicities, there would had been more clashes. In the long run, the pakistani ethinicities have started to coexist.

Vouching for a seperate muslim state was needed or else another country would never had been carved out of india. Sikhs failed because they were in small number.

Muslims on the basis of religion were in greater number. The british would never had divided the country on ethinicities as nehru and jinnah were the only two who were putting up arguments and fight.

Under muslim, the numbers were big enough to put forward a demand.

The failiure was national identity. Bengalis were able to carve their own national identity.

Tnt fails if we baluchistan, kpk, aindh and punjab become seperate

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I’m surprised it hasn’t been renamed yet.

They should rename it Yorkminster Tower to reflect aspirational direction of modern India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

100s died in Calcutta due to the direct action day riots. Everyday anything glorifying M A Jinnah exists in India, its an insult to those who died.

 

[Hextro]

100s died in Calcutta due to the direct action day riots. Everyday anything glorifying M A Jinnah exists in India, its an insult to those who died.

Change the name of this random tower no one has ever heard of, Happy?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Change the name of this random tower no one has ever heard of, Happy?

Tbf they want to change it to Abdul Kalam tower.

I say let them. Pakistan is the rightful heir to ancient & pre modern India anyway.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Change the name of this random tower no one has ever heard of, Happy?

Remove Jinnah's name.

 

[Hextro]

Remove Jinnah's name.

Ok, do it.

See no one is affected. No one cares outside a few people who give way too much attention to irrelevant things.

 

[DRsohail]

Remove Jinnah's name.

Do it who stop you from doing it? I mean anyone from my motherland stopping you from doing it?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

After looking at the state of Muslims in India today, it is safe to say that MA Jinnah's two nation theory didn't fail. And the scary thing is worse is yet to come.

 

[dildilpak]

I am more surprised the Jinnah tower name actually survived this far.

 

[KB]

Sorry to say, but he is one of the most over rated people in our history. The only reason he is admired is because he was a theologian, something which quaid, aga khan and sir syed were not.

To be sure, Sir Sayyid was a theologian. For a study of Sir Sayyid's theology and theological vision of Islam, see Christian Troll's book: Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Reinterpretation of Muslim Theology. From Troll's book:

"It can be concluded that Sayyid Ahmad Khan was rooted firmly in the religious tradition of Indian Islam. The upbringing and early education in his remarkable family and, later on, his personal religious studies in the intellectually vivid atmosphere of pre-1857 Delhi contributed to a genuine concern for the purity and strength of Islamic belief and practice in India. This led to his active participation in contemporary religious debate, and endeavour for reform. His later works in the field of theology were therefore not produced for want of other, more effective means to achieve his (allegedly) secular aims. They grew out of a long-existing commitment to, and an ever-widening knowledge of, the theological tradition of Islam."