Partition would not have happened had Mr. Jinnah become India PM: Dalai Lama

[Abdullah719]

Exiled Tibetan leader Dalai Lama said on Wednesday that Partition would have been averted had Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah become the first prime minister of India, according to Hindustan Times.

The Dalai Lama made the comments while speaking at a Goa educational institute. He made the remarks while responding to a student’s query on taking right decisions.

“Now look at India. I think Mahatma Gandhi was very much willing to give the prime ministership to Jinnah. But Pandit Nehru refused,” he said.

The exiled Tibetan leader went on to add how he thought it was a bit self-centered on part of Jawaharlal Nehru to covet the top post.

“I think it was a little bit self-centred attitude of Pandit Nehru that he should be the prime minister. India and Pakistan would have remained united had Mahatma Gandhi’s thinking materialised,” he said, adding, “Pandit Nehru, I know very well, (was a) very experienced person, very wise but sometimes mistakes also happen.”

Earlier in May, Uttar Pradesh Minister Swami Prasad Maurya eulogised Jinnah as a “mahapurush” or great man. The minister made the remarks while admonishing a Bharatiya Janata Party MP for criticising Aligarh Muslim University for displaying a photo of Jinnah at the varsity. “It is shameful for anyone to point a finger on great leaders who contributed towards the country’s formation,” he had then said.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1776154/9-partition-not-happened-jinnah-become-india-pm-dalai-lama/

 

[Pakistanian]

That's couldn't be further from the truth. Jinnah wasn't some supreme leader of the Muslim league, there were ither people too that wanted to create Pakistan.

 

[TM Riddle]

Should have allowed Jinnah to become PM. Better him than dunces like Liaquat.

 

[Vegitto1]

Jinnah refused Gandhi's offer.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The only good thing Nehru ever did.

 

[Loralai]

The only good thing Nehru ever did.

Care to elaborate? Nehruvian values of secular socialism were the best thing about India and the main reason it remained relatively stable in its earliest phases.

I find it strange how so many Indians are now turning against their greatest leader. Nehru was a man of real idealism, a hard worker and an intelligent thinker, who deserves a lot of respect for his achievements.

 

[slipcatch]

Well in that case, Thank You, Jinnah and Nehru for letting me enjoy my steak in peace.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Care to elaborate? Nehruvian values of secular socialism were the best thing about India and the main reason it remained relatively stable in its earliest phases.

I find it strange how so many Indians are now turning against their greatest leader. Nehru was a man of real idealism, a hard worker and an intelligent thinker, who deserves a lot of respect for his achievements.

what about Jinnah ?

 

[CricketCartoons]

what about Jinnah ?

No offence, but you should refer to him as baba-e-qaum or qaid-e-azam.

 

[Lonewarrior]

No offence, but you should refer to him as baba-e-qaum or qaid-e-azam.

you are right. sorry for that. thanks for correction.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Care to elaborate? Nehruvian values of secular socialism were the best thing about India and the main reason it remained relatively stable in its earliest phases.

I find it strange how so many Indians are now turning against their greatest leader. Nehru was a man of real idealism, a hard worker and an intelligent thinker, who deserves a lot of respect for his achievements.

what about ‎Quaid-e-Azam ?

 

[Bhaijaan]

The guy is a fraud. Nothing he says should be taken seriously.

He does say a lot of stuff that makes sense and is a good learning for all of us but that's about it.

Don't expect the Dalai Lama to give you a lesson in world history. Ironically the guy he attempted to target actually wrote a book on world history as part of a whooping 200 letters hand written to his daughter during jail term. Its a great read :-

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154128.Glimpses_of_World_History

Some people may have disagreements with Nehru but none can question his caliber and wisdom.

 

[enkidu_]

Care to elaborate? Nehruvian values of secular socialism were the best thing about India and the main reason it remained relatively stable in its earliest phases.

I find it strange how so many Indians are now turning against their greatest leader. Nehru was a man of real idealism, a hard worker and an intelligent thinker, who deserves a lot of respect for his achievements.

Nehruvian socialism is the reason Indian economy remained crap until the '91 liberalization, thanks to Manmohan Singh, when the FDI finally crossed 70 odd millions dollars (for a pop. of nearly 900 millions). The "Hindu growth of rate" was mocked everywhere. It's good to have "institutions" and doing rebellious/heroic geopolitics with Tito or Nasser, but what's its worth if you can't uplift 100s of millions out of poverty, like the "dictatorship" in China ?

Nehru also misled the Hindus with his so called secularism.

 

[Bhaijaan]

All said and done, India-Pakistan should move on from these topics. Its 70 years since we got independent and separated. Its a different world now and there are different challenges lying ahead which are more important than trying to correct history with our biased thoughts.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Nehruvian socialism is the reason Indian economy remained crap until the '91 liberalization, thanks to Manmohan Singh, when the FDI finally crossed 70 odd millions dollars (for a pop. of nearly 900 millions). The "Hindu growth of rate" was mocked everywhere. It's good to have "institutions" and doing rebellious/heroic geopolitics with Tito or Nasser, but what's its worth if you can't uplift 100s of millions out of poverty, like the "dictatorship" in China ?

You know nothing about economics.

Also your last comment on secularism really gave away your real intentions as a sanghi bhakt.

 

[slipcatch]

All said and done, India-Pakistan should move on from these topics. Its 70 years since we got independent and separated. Its a different world now and there are different challenges lying ahead which are more important than trying to correct history with our biased thoughts.

Won't happen until Kashmir issue is solved.

Ending of extremists from both side of the border needed to solve Kashmir issue, at the moment it seems Indian government and general population are being radicalized.

 

[enkidu_]

You know nothing about economics.

Also your last comment on secularism really gave away your real intentions as a sanghi bhakt.

Hindus were waiting for a Hindu India, like there was an Islamic Pakistan, but what they got at the end was pseudo secularism which is an euphemism for minority appeasement. That's the truth. Godse or Indira Gandhi's assassination are just outcomes of the fake sickularism promoted by the Khangress.

 

[PakLFC]

Quaid said no to this offer as shown in the "Gandhi" movie. It was not about the power that comes with becoming PM but his rightful concern of Muslim's being second class citizens in a united sub continent. With independence day coming up of both Pak and India expect such nonsense from the likes of Lama. Many Sikh's will tell how how they regret not listening to Quaid Jinnah at the time.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Whatever man. They can believe whatever they want to believe, whatever makes them happy and help them sleep well at night.

 

[Pakistanian]

Should have allowed Jinnah to become PM. Better him than dunces like Liaquat.

Wasn't jinnah like real sick and died a year latter?

 

[Bhaijaan]

Won't happen until Kashmir issue is solved.

Ending of extremists from both side of the border needed to solve Kashmir issue, at the moment it seems Indian government and general population are being radicalized.

We can treat Kashmir as a modern issue. Don’t see the point of arguing over Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru in 2018. Completely pointless.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Hindus were waiting for a Hindu India, like there was an Islamic Pakistan, but what they got at the end was pseudo secularism which is an euphemism for minority appeasement. That's the truth. Godse or Indira Gandhi's assassination are just outcomes of the fake sickularism promoted by the Khangress.

These kind of idiotic comments should stay in whatsapp where all of you khakee knickers wearing bhakts dwell. Secularism is the basis of the formation of modern India. Without it the concept ceases to exist as people of hundreds of languages and cultures and dozens of religions/sects can never be unified under the umbrella of Hinduism.

There are 180 million Muslims in India. What are their rights in a Hindu nation when they are already in pathetic situation even in a constitutionally secular India.

A Hindu India maybe your wet dream but it will never be a reality so deal with it.

Secularism is the way to go for India and for the world.

I am glad Nehru led the way and kept extremist Hindu trolls like you irrelevant for so long.

 

[Bhaijaan]

It is a shame many extremist minded Hindus in India today fever Natha Ram Godse. The first Hindu terrorist of independent India.

RSS for the records opted to not support Congress’s freedom movement. They and their little extremist bhakts are the worst things this land has had to deal with.

Throw Modi out.

Destroy RSS

Destroy Hindu fascism of Modi/BJP/RSS

Bring Congress back and Make India great again.

 

[cric_man]

It is a shame many extremist minded Hindus in India today fever Natha Ram Godse. The first Hindu terrorist of independent India.

RSS for the records opted to not support Congress’s freedom movement. They and their little extremist bhakts are the worst things this land has had to deal with.

Throw Modi out.

Destroy RSS

Destroy Hindu fascism of Modi/BJP/RSS

Bring Congress back and Make India great again.

How is Congress fairing these days?
I was riding to working today with an Indian colleague and he painted a very dim picture of a very corrupt, dynastic and inept leadership.
He was all praises of Modi for his fixing of the economy.

 

[Bhaijaan]

How is Congress fairing these days?
I was riding to working today with an Indian colleague and he painted a very dim picture of a very corrupt, dynastic and inept leadership.
He was all praises of Modi for his fixing of the economy.

Your Indian colleague is nothing but a Islamophobic Sanghi bhakt. Beware of him. He might be friendly in your face but inside out these people all advocate Muslims to be burnt to death or be sent to Pakistan. You can see one such disgraceful bhakt above takin jibes at secularism in India, one of India’s proudest jewels:


Congress is going through a slump in the absence of an iconic leader like they had in the past.

At the same time India is going through a phase of Islamophobia/Hindu nationalist sentiments hence Modi/RSS. They have done nothing in 4 years except for creating communal clashes, beating college children, trafficking women, lunching Muslim traders or renaming anything to do with Muslims with some ex Hindu nationalist with zero contribution to India.

Congress is resilient however. It may take 5 years or 10 years or 15 years but they will return when Indians will finally wake up and realize the BJP/RSS has burnt this nation down to ashes.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Care to elaborate? Nehruvian values of secular socialism were the best thing about India and the main reason it remained relatively stable in its earliest phases.

I find it strange how so many Indians are now turning against their greatest leader. Nehru was a man of real idealism, a hard worker and an intelligent thinker, who deserves a lot of respect for his achievements.

Secularism was corrupted by Nehru. The other leaders had viewed India as a secular country on the lines of western nations. He started the move of making exceptions. First he allowed Muslims to have a separate personal law. Then when he realiased that the hindu community whose personal laws were now under the constitution were up in arms, he passed the cow slaughter ban act.

When media started criticising him, he amended the constitition to bring restrictions on freedom of speech. He banned several books, jailed journalists and authors.

His brand of socialism created the License Permit era. There by giving vast powers to bureaucracy and police and politicians. Resulting in huge corruption that remains till today.

To keep his power he didnot change the police, bureaucratic and the political system. So the oppressive system that was created by the British , where officers were white and they kept the Indians under their thumbs with little accountability remained. Only the officers now were indian. The politicians became new rulers and VIPs. A elitist culture that Nehru wanted.

Just a small example- Till 2014 before the Modi govt. abolished the practice, for every govt work where you had to submit documents be it as simple as a college form or a passport form or 100cr tender, everything had to be Attested by a govt official of certain rank called a gazetted officer. This is the kind of system nehru created.


His license permit raj meant to set up even the smallest industry you needed hundreds of govt clearances and the govt would determine the production and cost. Politicians took 100s of crores to clear projects.

Petty govt clerks have so much power thst they will not clear your files unless you bribe them even if all documents were in order. Files were to be cleared on the basis of "Babus" will and not credibility.

All this because Nehru wanted to have control on everything.

What i listed is what ordinary people faced. I am not going into the blunders he did with foreign policy, economy, defence etc.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Modi is uneducated. Basically former tea seller who became an RSS cadre and lead from the front in their anti national activities. As chief minister of Gujarat he helped the Hindu rioters merciless slaughter thousands of Muslims openly on the streets when he had all the power to send security forces on the ground and protect the minorities as was his responsibility as the elected leader. This is why you never met fascism grow to this level. Muslims are to RSS/BJP/Modi what jews were to Hitler. Never forget that.

Please be very careful of the friends you keep. Anyone awkwardly obsessed with Modi , there’s your catch right there. They all want Muslims to be butchered and sent to Pakistan. Please never support or befriend such people.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Care to elaborate? Nehruvian values of secular socialism were the best thing about India and the main reason it remained relatively stable in its earliest phases.

I find it strange how so many Indians are now turning against their greatest leader. Nehru was a man of real idealism, a hard worker and an intelligent thinker, who deserves a lot of respect for his achievements.

The BJP/RSS has a running campaign against intellectuals because none of their actions, policies and the online trolls ever stand a chance in any debate with someone who’s well read.

This is why they hate intellectuals. I mean can you even digest this thought. People hate dishonesty, people hate extremism, people hate corruption but modern India hates intellectualism. What kind of madness has taken over this country.

 

[enkidu_]

[MENTION=65183]freelance_cricketer[/MENTION] bhaijaan your contempt for the average Hindu man (who's not "intellectual" enough to "appreciate" Sir Nehru) is what will cost you at the end. Even the Shah of Iran had such views of the "mullahs". If you don't respect a majority population's identity - religion and culture - in a so called democracy (a political system supposed to represent the majority), you'll end up with alienating peoples, who then will choose extreme ideologies because of the systemic polarization. The same theorem applies everywhere (see the rise of Islamism under autocratic secular regimes, etc).

 

[CricketCartoons]

The BJP/RSS has a running campaign against intellectuals because none of their actions, policies and the online trolls ever stand a chance in any debate with someone who’s well read.

This is why they hate intellectuals. I mean can you even digest this thought. People hate dishonesty, people hate extremism, people hate corruption but modern India hates intellectualism. What kind of madness has taken over this country.

This is true that we hate these jhola chaap intellectuals, who think they are superior because they speak and write well, while we struggle to express ourselves as eloquently and often need abuses to make our point. These people get away with murder because of their oxford english, while we get labeled as backward misogynist and uncultured just because we are too emotional and think from our hearts.

 

[cric_man]

Secularism was corrupted by Nehru. The other leaders had viewed India as a secular country on the lines of western nations. He started the move of making exceptions. First he allowed Muslims to have a separate personal law. Then when he realiased that the hindu community whose personal laws were now under the constitution were up in arms, he passed the cow slaughter ban act.

When media started criticising him, he amended the constitition to bring restrictions on freedom of speech. He banned several books, jailed journalists and authors.

His brand of socialism created the License Permit era. There by giving vast powers to bureaucracy and police and politicians. Resulting in huge corruption that remains till today.

To keep his power he didnot change the police, bureaucratic and the political system. So the oppressive system that was created by the British , where officers were white and they kept the Indians under their thumbs with little accountability remained. Only the officers now were indian. The politicians became new rulers and VIPs. A elitist culture that Nehru wanted.

Just a small example- Till 2014 before the Modi govt. abolished the practice, for every govt work where you had to submit documents be it as simple as a college form or a passport form or 100cr tender, everything had to be Attested by a govt official of certain rank called a gazetted officer. This is the kind of system nehru created.


His license permit raj meant to set up even the smallest industry you needed hundreds of govt clearances and the govt would determine the production and cost. Politicians took 100s of crores to clear projects.

Petty govt clerks have so much power thst they will not clear your files unless you bribe them even if all documents were in order. Files were to be cleared on the basis of "Babus" will and not credibility.

All this because Nehru wanted to have control on everything.

What i listed is what ordinary people faced. I am not going into the blunders he did with foreign policy, economy, defence etc.

So what is this issue with Muslim Personal Law? It does not impact non-muslims and is only related to personal issues such as marriage/divorce/inheritance. It does not infringe upon any right of any other religion or sect?
In the US, Jews have the same laws for orthodox Jews BTW

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindus were waiting for a Hindu India, like there was an Islamic Pakistan, but what they got at the end was pseudo secularism which is an euphemism for minority appeasement. That's the truth. Godse or Indira Gandhi's assassination are just outcomes of the fake sickularism promoted by the Khangress.

This is why India would have remained better served staying part of the British Empire. Brits squeezed all the juice out of the country for 200 years, but once it became a pain and too much expense to run as a profitable colony it made more sense to leave. It was these Hindutvas and Muslim Leagues who messed up by demanding partition once the Brits packed up and left. They should have asked their British leaders to remain and continue to administer the country into the 21st century rather than leave a semi-developed mess.

 

[saadibaba]

I think the views expressed by Dalai Lama are based on the movie "Gandhi", this is how it was portrayed in the movie. I think someone like @KB can probably give a more researched and authenticated view on series of events that led to partition but even if what Dalai Lama is saying is true, I think the blame for partition solely rests on Congress and Nehru rather than Jinnah and Muslim League, a view not endorsed by the majority of Indians, in fact they think the opposite is true. I personally feel Jinnah was left with no choice but to ask for partition after Congress refused to give in the demands by Muslim League.

 

[saadibaba]

This is why India would have remained better served staying part of the British Empire. Brits squeezed all the juice out of the country for 200 years, but once it became a pain and too much expense to run as a profitable colony it made more sense to leave. It was these Hindutvas and Muslim Leagues who messed up by demanding partition once the Brits packed up and left. They should have asked their British leaders to remain and continue to administer the country into the 21st century rather than leave a semi-developed mess.

...and Cpt. Rishwat and his family would still be ruling over us illiterate and unruly folks.

A nightmarish thought to say the least.

 

[El Generico]

"That female must be attractive, otherwise it is not much use," he told a startled BBC interviewer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...le-successor-would-have-to-be-attractive.html

Is this the same guy who said this? May be unrelated but shows how credible his statements are.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

"That female must be attractive, otherwise it is not much use," he told a startled BBC interviewer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...le-successor-would-have-to-be-attractive.html

Is this the same guy who said this? May be unrelated but shows how credible his statements are.

His Holiness was probably speaking to a very attractive female tv anchor. As we know, everywhere in the world, only the beautiful and pleasing to the eye ladies are chosen for these roles, the Dalai was merely respecting his hosts by acknowledging their own preference as a worthy endeavour.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So what is this issue with Muslim Personal Law? It does not impact non-muslims and is only related to personal issues such as marriage/divorce/inheritance. It does not infringe upon any right of any other religion or sect?
In the US, Jews have the same laws for orthodox Jews BTW

Then such allowance be given to all religions.Why should hindus be forced to go through civil courts and follow constitutional laws in this matter?

This isnt secularism then.

Uniform laws should apply.

 

[Rafa]

Then such allowance be given to all religions.Why should hindus be forced to go through civil courts and follow constitutional laws in this matter?

This isnt secularism then.

Uniform laws should apply.

Why are you so obsessed with Secularism?

If Hindus want to have their own religious laws , demand that to your government. Why blame Muslims and curtail their rights?

 

[Loralai]

The BJP/RSS has a running campaign against intellectuals because none of their actions, policies and the online trolls ever stand a chance in any debate with someone who’s well read.

This is why they hate intellectuals. I mean can you even digest this thought. People hate dishonesty, people hate extremism, people hate corruption but modern India hates intellectualism. What kind of madness has taken over this country.

Nehru was a great figure and I frankly find it surprising that so many Indians talk trash about him as if he was some idiot who didn't know what he was doing. India - and South Asia in general - was very lucky to have a statesman of his class and thinking. I don't want to make it into a Nehru v Modi thread but if one looks that the ideals of Nehru and compares then with the ideals of Modi then we can see a clear shift in the direction of India and I don't think it is one that is in the best interests of India or South Asia.

Nehru was a statesman of real quality, the likes of which India is not likely to see again.
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] what is wrong with the idea of having protections in place for minority communities who might otherwise be under danger, and what is wrong with allowing Muslims to follow personal law? I wish Pakistani government would take similar steps and put specific protections in law to ensure that our minority communities had complete freedom to practice their religions without any interference from extremists.

Nehru successfully adapted modern concepts of secularism to fit with the cultural and religious needs of the India of his time. This was no small achievement.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why are you so obsessed with Secularism?

If Hindus want to have their own religious laws , demand that to your government. Why blame Muslims and curtail their rights?

Because India is a secular country. Any religious law shouldnot have any place here, including sharia.

 

[cric_man]

Then such allowance be given to all religions.Why should hindus be forced to go through civil courts and follow constitutional laws in this matter?

This isnt secularism then.

Uniform laws should apply.

Bhai, Muslim Personal Law does not trump civil law ( I am hoping based on what I see in the US).
It only relates to marriage/divorce/inheritance. It should not infringe on any other non-muslim's civil rights.

Secularism in my mind is separation on Church/temple/mosque and State. State should not enact any rules or laws that oppresses or infringes on any of its peoples religious freedom and liberties.

Like I said, even in the US the have Rabbinical Courts, Canon Law Courts etc that deal with personal issues of Jews/Catholics outside of US civil court systems. They do not in any shape or form over ride US civil legal systems.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bhai, Muslim Personal Law does not trump civil law ( I am hoping based on what I see in the US).
It only relates to marriage/divorce/inheritance. It should not infringe on any other non-muslim's civil rights.

Secularism in my mind is separation on Church/temple/mosque and State. State should not enact any rules or laws that oppresses or infringes on any of its peoples religious freedom and liberties.

Like I said, even in the US the have Rabbinical Courts, Canon Law Courts etc that deal with personal issues of Jews/Catholics outside of US civil court systems. They do not in any shape or form over ride US civil legal systems.

Hindu marriage divorce or inheritance laws are defined as per the constitution. While muslims are allowed to be governed by their own personal laws which have not been codified in the constitution. Such extra rights cannot be granted to one community only. Every Indian has to be governed with the same law, which has to be secular and not based on any religious texts.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Nehru was a great figure and I frankly find it surprising that so many Indians talk trash about him as if he was some idiot who didn't know what he was doing. India - and South Asia in general - was very lucky to have a statesman of his class and thinking. I don't want to make it into a Nehru v Modi thread but if one looks that the ideals of Nehru and compares then with the ideals of Modi then we can see a clear shift in the direction of India and I don't think it is one that is in the best interests of India or South Asia.

Nehru was a statesman of real quality, the likes of which India is not likely to see again.
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] what is wrong with the idea of having protections in place for minority communities who might otherwise be under danger, and what is wrong with allowing Muslims to follow personal law? I wish Pakistani government would take similar steps and put specific protections in law to ensure that our minority communities had complete freedom to practice their religions without any interference from extremists.

Nehru successfully adapted modern concepts of secularism to fit with the cultural and religious needs of the India of his time. This was no small achievement.

Why should one community be allowed such special priviledges?Its a secular state.One law for everyone.

Nehru corrupted secularism and was hardly a statesman.He wasnot even a seasoned politician.

 

[cric_man]

Hindu marriage divorce or inheritance laws are defined as per the constitution. While muslims are allowed to be governed by their own personal laws which have not been codified in the constitution. Such extra rights cannot be granted to one community only. Every Indian has to be governed with the same law, which has to be secular and not based on any religious texts.

It is called accommodation for a significant subset your population not infringing upon any other person's rights. Like I said, even the US law allows it. It is not contrary to the concept of secularism.

 

[Markhor]

Jimnah's first preference was to ensure Muslim minority rights in a united but decentralised Indian state. "Pakistan" was a bargaining chip for a long time in negotiations and as late as 1946 the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan for a united India but one where maximum autonomy was granted to the provinces.

The Lahore Resolution itself can be interpreted as a call for a Confederation rather than a separate nation.

When Nehru and Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan, desiring a strong Centre - that was the last straw for Jinnah and so began the road to Partition. Jinnah was a pragmatic politician and not the villainous wrecker hell bent on breaking up the country as sometimes portrayed.

 

[Markhor]

Wasn't jinnah like real sick and died a year latter?

Yes and Jinnah hid his illness during negotiations.

Mountbatten commented years later that if he knew the truth about Jinnah's health - he would've screwed him even more with the territorial divisions.

 

[shaz619]

Yes and Jinnah hid his illness during negotiations.

Mountbatten commented years later that if he knew the truth about Jinnah's health - he would've screwed him even more with the territorial divisions.

Many say his sickness became a lot worse largely due to the aftermath of partition due to the decisions he had made, then again no human would ever have been able to live with what happened after.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It is called accommodation for a significant subset your population not infringing upon any other person's rights. Like I said, even the US law allows it. It is not contrary to the concept of secularism.

So exceptions are to be made for Muslims?Why?They are not special that they cannot follow the laws that others follow. This is what appeasement is. When Hindus allowed their laws to be run by the constitutional laws why should muslims get preferential treatment?


All religions are to be treated equally under the Indian constitution.

 

[cric_man]

So exceptions are to be made for Muslims?Why?They are not special that they cannot follow the laws that others follow. This is what appeasement is. When Hindus allowed their laws to be run by the constitutional laws why should muslims get preferential treatment?


All religions are to be treated equally under the Indian constitution.

How is this impacting you or any other hindu in India adversely?

 

[enkidu_]

When Nehru and Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan, desiring a strong Centre - that was the last straw for Jinnah and so began the road to Partition. Jinnah was a pragmatic politician and not the villainous wrecker hell bent on breaking up the country as sometimes portrayed.

This centralization fetish, which was running exactly against the Gandhian model of local-village empowerment (gram swaraj), was due to Nehru's fascination with foreign socialism, with their own peculiar conditions different from that of India : like Stalin's Soviet union with the "Gosplan", but without doing his (or Mao Zedong's) demolition job of the traditional system before (which is the reason it succeeded), he was aiming for a planned economy to further the industrialization, which de facto needed a strong political centralization.

Ultimately, this is what gave rise to India's omnipresent bureaucracy, the "Licence Raj" system, etc which made sure that corruption/inefficiency cripple the Indian economy for some five decades (before the '91 liberalization.)

Like in many developing countries you thus had a socialism which talked of "equal distribution of the wealth" but without wealth creation.

Nehru's press policy too was not that "democratic".

Basically his real plus point is the geopolitics, which gave an unprecedented place to India in the political world, not reached again till today.

Even the other so called long-lasting contributions of Nehru were the brainchildren of his close associates more than himself (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad behind the IITs, etc)

 

[CricketCartoons]

How is this impacting you or any other hindu in India adversely?

Why should muslims be allowed more than one wife, and we hindus be restricted to only one wife. This unfair treatment is affecting us. This inequality is affecting us.

 

[cric_man]

Why should muslims be allowed more than one wife, and we hindus be restricted to only one wife. This unfair treatment is affecting us. This inequality is affecting us.

LOL..... You are absolutely right!
I get it now.

As we say in Pakistan, "Larki nein pasoori dal de hai"

 

[cricketjoshila]

How is this impacting you or any other hindu in India adversely?

Thats not the point. Point is no religion should get preferential treatment.

How was it affecting anyone that Hindu Widows couldnot remarry anyone? How was it impacting anyone that there is no concept of divorce in Hindus? How was it that Hindus have to follow monogamous laws while Muslims are allowed polygamy? How is it that Hindus have to share property equally between the heirs but muslims can give lesser share to females?Why do Hindus have to go to court for divorce and pay maintenance as per law while Muslims could get away with just uttering Talaq?

There is a concept of equality before law. Anyone community getting preference on basis of religion is neither secular nor does it conform to the concept of equality.It only means appeasement.

 

[cric_man]

Thats not the point. Point is no religion should get preferential treatment.

How was it affecting anyone that Hindu Widows couldnot remarry anyone? How was it impacting anyone that there is no concept of divorce in Hindus? How was it that Hindus have to follow monogamous laws while Muslims are allowed polygamy? How is it that Hindus have to share property equally between the heirs but muslims can give lesser share to females?Why do Hindus have to go to court for divorce and pay maintenance as per law while Muslims could get away with just uttering Talaq?

There is a concept of equality before law. Anyone community getting preference on basis of religion is neither secular nor does it conform to the concept of equality.It only means appeasement.

You don't get away just by saying Talaq. Look up Haq Mehr (payable at the time of marriage) and responsibilities towards your wards.

Hehehehe I think this 4 wives issue is the root cause of all this heartburn......

 

[cric_man]

I also now get what [MENTION=65183]freelance_cricketer[/MENTION] was saying.

A quick googling tells me that Muslim Personal Law is going to be Modi's next wedge issue to gin up his base.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You don't get away just by saying Talaq. Look up Haq Mehr (payable at the time of marriage) and responsibilities towards your wards.

Hehehehe I think this 4 wives issue is the root cause of all this heartburn......

Please read up the ShahBano case. You will know the reason why this issue started.

Every religion has to be treated equally. One religion cannot claim to be above the courts and laws in matters of personal law.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I also now get what [MENTION=65183]freelance_cricketer[/MENTION] was saying.

A quick googling tells me that Muslim Personal Law is going to be Modi's next wedge issue to gin up his base.

Already the supreme court has declared Triple Talaq illegal and unconstitutional. Hearing is on regarding polygamy,Halala and female genital mutiliation, if they are in accordance to the constitution. The court may stuck these down as well.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Hehehehe I think this 4 wives issue is the root cause of all this heartburn......

You think it is funny?

The state is essentially saying that if you want more than one wife then become a muslim. as a hindu you don't have rights to bring home another wife ( you may, but it would be a crime).

It is our basic right to have another wife.

 

[cric_man]

Already the supreme court has declared Triple Talaq illegal and unconstitutional. Hearing is on regarding polygamy,Halala and female genital mutiliation, if they are in accordance to the constitution. The court may stuck these down as well.

Female genital mutilation which has no basis in Islamic law (It is more a regional practice somehow permeated in the Indian subcontinent from Africa). I did not even know about it till 2-3 years ago. I was surprised when I read an article about it happening in Pakistan last year. It should be banned (you have my blessings).

Quite a few Muslim scholars (at least in PK) consider Triple talaq wrong. It cannot be done in heat of the moment (in anger) in one sitting. The decision needs to be arrived upon in 90 days.

Excerpts from Divorce_in_Islam

Talaq al-bid'ah and triple talaq
Talaq types can be classified into talaq al-sunnah, which is thought to be in accordance with Muhammad's teachings, and talaq al-bid'ah, which are viewed as a bid'ah (innovation) deviations from it. Talaq al-sunnah is further subdivided into talaq al-ahsan, which is the least disapproved form of talaq, and talaq al-hasan. The ahsan talaq involves a single revocable pronouncement of divorce and sexual abstinence during the waiting period. The hasan divorce involves three pronouncements made during the wife's state of ritual purity with menstrual periods intervening between them, and no intercourse having taken place during that time.[17]

In contrast to talaq al-sunnah, talaq al-bid'ah does not observe the waiting period and irrevocably terminates the marriage.[17] It may involve a "triple talaq", i.e., the declaration of talaq repeated three times, or a different formula such as "you are haram for me".[17][19] Some legal schools held that a triple talaq performed in a single meeting constituted a "major" divorce, while others classified it as a "minor" divorce.[5] Talaq al-bid'ah reflects pre-Islamic divorce customs rather than Quranic principles, and it is considered to be a particularly disapproved, though legally valid form of divorce in traditional Sunni jurisprudence.[17] According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad denounced the practice of triple talaq, and the second caliph Umar punished husbands who made use of it.[19]

Shiite jurisprudence does not recognize talaq al-bid'ah.[20]

Halala as absurd as it sounds, is in place to discourage talaq given in anger then wanting to go back on it. In Islam divorce, even though allowed is frowned upon and should not be exercised trivially.

Here is a scenario. Some guy gives talaq to his wife verbally which is legal in Islam. But doesn't file for "civil divorce". What happens then? If the wife is an observing muslim, she cannot be living with that person? There are around 200M muslims in India. Agree that is only 15-18% of the Indian population, but still more than most countries. Accommodating them without infringing on others civil rights is not a big black spot on secularism.

 

[cric_man]

You think it is funny?

The state is essentially saying that if you want more than one wife then become a muslim. as a hindu you don't have rights to bring home another wife ( you may, but it would be a crime).

It is our basic right to have another wife.

You are right. You have made a believer!
4 wives for all !!!! How dare these muslims only enjoy the god given bounty of multiple wives.

 

[yasir]

The real reason Partition happened because Englishmen lost WW2 badly, they did not have enough power to keep their hold on colonies. It has nothing to do with Gandhi or Jinnah or any political movement. If WW2 has never happened, we will still be under British Raj...

Both Jinnah and Gandhi were happy playing local "she said, he said" politics with each other. Non of them ever have issue with British Raj, they competed elections, were part of British System...Gandi was all for non-violence, which really looks silly when you are already very weak, it make sense when you make those ideologies from position of strength, BTW, that non-violence thing, did not help win an inch of land from Brits either...

Muslim League and Congress unfortunately were made up of feudals and Industrialists to protect their land and industries within British Raj, they actually played in the hands of Brits and were never threat to British Raj. They created this Hindu/Muslim divide as well, which was not driven by problems facing people. Majority of Hindus and Muslims were very poor, it was religious elite class and cast system that was making them poor for thousands of years...Difference between Hindus and Muslims were really at surface level veneer, deep down they both embraced cast system and all fundamental rotten values that made sure poor remain poor... This is still the case in both countries(all three countries)... If Partition was revolution, things would have changed. It was continuation of British Raj in many ways...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The real reason Partition happened because Englishmen lost WW2 badly, they did not have enough power to keep their hold on colonies. It has nothing to do with Gandhi or Jinnah or any political movement. If WW2 has never happened, we will still be under British Raj...

Both Jinnah and Gandhi were happy playing local "she said, he said" politics with each other. Non of them ever have issue with British Raj, they competed elections, were part of British System...Gandi was all for non-violence, which really looks silly when you are already very weak, it make sense when you make those ideologies from position of strength, BTW, that non-violence thing, did not help win an inch of land from Brits either...

Muslim League and Congress unfortunately were made up of feudals and Industrialists to protect their land and industries within British Raj, they actually played in the hands of Brits and were never threat to British Raj. They created this Hindu/Muslim divide as well, which was not driven by problems facing people. Majority of Hindus and Muslims were very poor, it was religious elite class and cast system that was making them poor for thousands of years...Difference between Hindus and Muslims were really at surface level veneer, deep down they both embraced cast system and all fundamental rotten values that made sure poor remain poor... This is still the case in both countries(all three countries)... If Partition was revolution, things would have changed. It was continuation of British Raj in many ways...

POTW material for sure. Look at how Hong Kong prospered compared to China during it's days as a British colony, I can't help feel that if instead of partition and the mess we have now, an undivided India would be much further along the road had it remained part of the British empire. Plus Indians would be less hostile to British Pakistanis as we would of course all be British subjects. Even joshila bhai and Cricketcartoons.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">My statement has created controversy, if I said something wrong I apologise: Dalai Lama on his statement, "Mahatma Gandhi ji was very much willing to give Prime Ministership to Jinnah but Pandit Nehru refused." <a href="https://t.co/jjIEmc280E">pic.twitter.com/jjIEmc280E</a></p>— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1027799363706388481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[KB]

To keep his power he didnot change the police, bureaucratic and the political system. So the oppressive system that was created by the British , where officers were white and they kept the Indians under their thumbs with little accountability remained. Only the officers now were indian. The politicians became new rulers and VIPs. A elitist culture that Nehru wanted.

Recent interpreters of Nehru have pointed out that there ended up being a huge gap between Nehruvian ideals and the actual reality by the time of Nehru’s death. Despite the fiery rhetoric, the lofty idealism, the grand claims that independence would pave the way for the delivery of social justice, much of Nehru’s vision miscarried. Two key reasons centre around the nature of the Congress party and the Civil Service.

To achieve more of his aims, Nehru needed to transform the nature of the Congress party, into an ideologically coherent cadre based party. This would inevitably have led to splits and ruptures within the party. But Nehru seemed more intent on preserving its unity as he sought stability.

The Congress remained as it had done prior to independence, home to diverse interests. It was not easy to square Congress’s call for unity (and its projection as an embodiment of that unity) with its professed aim of social transformation. The latter objective, if seriously pursued, would have put a strain on the idea of unity as it would have brought social groups into conflict. Privileged social groups, interested with maintaining the status quo, had supported the Congress during the freedom movement and stayed with the party after independence. The Congress was a weak instrument to achieve Nehru’s lofty ideals of social transformation but it did play a key role in sustaining Indian democracy and achieving stability.

The Civil Service had been the object of much criticism during the colonial period by nationalists, including Nehru. As the “steel frame” of British rule it was geared towards imperial ends, concerned with maintaining order rather than creating radical change. Under Nehru, it was not seriously reformed and remained conservative and ill-equipped to achieve dynamic change. Nevertheless, it provided administrative continuity and stability.

In the end, we might note that many movements around the world that have espoused a revolutionary rhetoric have taken a rightward and more conservative turn when in government. This is because they wish to avoid anarchy. There is a tension that exists between seeking to secure stability and to achieve radical social transformation and often the former wins. In the Nehru years, we can see this with respect to how he dealt with the Congress party and the Civil Service.

 

[MenInG]

Pakistan on Wednesday strongly denounced the Modi-led BJP government's move to mark August 14 -- Pakistan's independence day -- as ‘Partition Horrors Remembrance Day’.

The Foreign Office (FO) spokesperson said that the “revisionist” BJP-RSS regime “sought to hypocritically and one-sidedly invoke the tragic events and mass migration that occurred in the wake of Independence in 1947”.

According to the foreign ministry, the BJP’s “deplorable” aim, as part of its divisive political agenda, was “wantonly attempting to play with the sentiments of the people through distorted interpretation of history”.

“If the Indian leaders genuinely care about agony, suffering and pain, they must work to improve the conditions of the Muslims and other minorities in India,” said the statement.

The MoFA stated that the last seven decades were replete with “undeniable proof that India’s espousal of secularism was a sham”.

“The fact is that today’s India is an undeclared ‘Hindu Rashtra’ that has no place or tolerance for other religious minorities, especially Muslims who are faced with discrimination, persecution and political and socio-economic exclusion.”

The FO advised New Delhi to desist from politicising events related to Independence and instead sincerely honour the memories of those who made sacrifices for a better future for all.

Backchannel talks hit dead end

Backchannel contacts between Pakistan and India met a dead end as both sides have struggled to agree on the moves that may pave the way for slow but gradual improvement in the relationship.

“Talks have been going on but have reached a point where things aren’t moving anywhere,” a source familiar with the development said.

There has been a desire from both sides to break the impasse but the issue is how to move forward from this point onwards, the source explained.

What slowed down the process was the political uncertainty in Pakistan.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/237038...ugust-14-as-partition-horrors-remembrance-day

 

[Champ_Pal]

The worst generation of Indian politicians was the batch of 1945-1970. Those guys were secularists and Marxists. Absolutely no vision and all they cares about was power. But growing up in India in late 80's & 90's, we were told that those leaders were living Gods.
I believe that Pakistan creation was a blessing in disguise for India.