Same for Gandhi and nehru. Thanks to President Roosvelt, not only Indian but many many countries became free from European colonizers (Frnce Spain, Itly, British). You have understand economy of world after 2nd WW and especially that of Britain.
@@amarnathjha8319 how is nehru gandhi did not contribute for independence of india??Both spent over 10 years each in jails and started many revolts against britishers.Are you some body from hindu mahasabha ( british boot lickers)
In 2024, Pakistanis are still deeply engaged in discussions about the 1947 partition, indicating that they have not fully moved past the event they desired. In contrast, for us Indians, the partition is a settled matter, long behind us. We view it as a positive outcome that allowed us to part ways with an unproductive, religiously extreme population. Without the partition, we might not have achieved the progress we see today and could have been trapped in a feudal societal structure, similar to what Pakistan continues to experience.
Thank you for appreciating the relevance of partition for a podcast on Jinnah. The Partition remains a deeply significant and emotional topic for both Pakistanis and Indians, though its interpretation and impact differ significantly. For Pakistan, partition is foundational to its national identity, symbolizing the creation of a homeland for Muslims. Ongoing discussions about this event in Pakistan reflect an attempt to reconcile the founders' vision with the realities of the present. In contrast, many Indians view partition as a settled matter, often framing it as a necessary event that allowed for the separation of two distinct paths. While India has celebrated its progress since independence, it is important to acknowledge that challenges such as caste discrimination, communal tensions, and regional disparities continue to impact its society, suggesting that partition did not entirely resolve the underlying divisions. Your perspective that partition allowed India to move away from "an unproductive, religiously extreme population" and avoid a feudal societal structure oversimplifies the complexities on both sides of the border. Pakistan’s struggles with political instability, feudalism, and extremism are significant, but they do not define the entirety of the nation or its diverse population. Pakistan has also achieved successes in various fields, including a vibrant diaspora, advancements in science, and cultural resilience. Similarly, while India has made great strides in economic and social development, religious extremism and majoritarianism have also posed challenges to its secular framework. The ongoing discourse around partition in Pakistan is not necessarily an indication of being stuck in the past but rather an effort to understand the roots of current challenges and shape a better future. In India, the relative lack of public focus on partition may suggest a sense of closure, yet the trauma and legacies of the event still linger in communities affected by the mass migrations and violence of that time. Both nations share a complex history shaped by partition, and while it is natural to draw comparisons, it is vital to approach such discussions with empathy and a nuanced understanding of the shared pain and divergent journeys that have shaped their respective paths. I hope that you can share that vision with us 🙏
@@indianavijay Mental regression, unlike Hindus ,mazhab is a non productive,parasitic mob ,who isnt capable of any innovation,wealth creation ,technological advancements after partition they lost their HOST( generally Hindu khatri sahukar/ moneylender) n unable to survive without loans or begging.
I really think your bigotry is coming through these words. Are you painting everyone from a specific minority with the same color? That would be really unfair.
@@MukhbirNama nah india has moved on..India's minority problem is not largely based on the history of partition..rather it's inherent characteristics of muslim society of subcontinent that they feel problem in assimaliting with the majority population who r Hindus..
It is sad to see that you are willing to paint an entire group with the same colors because that is how you have seen them. Perhaps there are different views which can be encouraged? 🙏
Sirs, all said and done,Mr Jinnah did provide a resolution to longstanding hindu-muslim conflicts in the indian subcontinent. The tragic part of the outcome was that all indian muslims did not migrate to pakistan in 1947, thereby creating a mess in the entire subcontinent.
He certainly did create a lot of issues for India and received a moth eaten Pakistan for his troubles. A tragic character of history in some people's view.
Jinnah was not a person with clarity who wanted to return to Bombay and live non-religious life and divided Hindustan for muslims. A completely opposite behaviour.
According to many sources and as described in the podcast Mr. Jinnah did indeed wish to retire at his villa in Bombay. Perhaps you have different sources for your information?
After watching many Pakistani progressive podcasts, I firmed my opinion that there are many people in Pakistan who are rational, liberal minded and we Indians can surely build rapport with them. However in reality they are tiny minority while majority are exactly opposite. They are the ones who drive the country. As you can see, India and Pakistan have the most stable and peaceful border currently. And, major reason behind this is, we aren’t talking to each other and thus no jingoism! In my honest opinion, both countries will benefit immensely if they stop thinking and infact remove each other completely from their minds. We have chosen altogether different paths after 1947, it is not possible to converge now. We can never be friends but at least we shouldn’t be enemies.
Your observation that there are progressive and liberal-minded individuals as well as podcasters in Pakistan is accurate and worth emphasizing. Like in any society, there are diverse voices and perspectives, ranging from conservative to progressive. The rational and open-minded individuals often advocate for peace, understanding, and mutual respect between nations, and their contributions are vital. However, as you rightly noted, the broader socio-political environment in Pakistan, shaped by historical, ideological, and economic factors, often leans in a direction that does not align with these progressive ideals. Of course the stability of the India-Pakistan border in recent years is indeed noteworthy. It highlights how the absence of aggressive rhetoric or heightened engagement has contributed to a reduction in tensions. This pragmatic approach, where both nations focus on their own development rather than fixating on each other, could pave the way for long-term stability. Removing mutual antagonism from national narratives might allow both countries to address pressing domestic issues more effectively and independently. Your point about the impossibility of convergence given the differing paths chosen after 1947 is also realistic. The foundational ideologies of India and Pakistan have created distinct identities that continue to shape their societies and politics. While it may not be feasible to achieve a friendship akin to that of allies, striving to avoid enmity is a commendable goal. Respectful coexistence, trade, cultural exchanges, and non-interference in each other's affairs could be stepping stones toward a more peaceful relationship. Ultimately, acknowledging the shared history and cultural ties while respecting each other's distinct trajectories can foster a sense of mutual respect without forcing alignment. It is not about erasing the past but rather about learning to move forward with a focus on progress and peace. I believe that such an approach could benefit not only the two nations but also the entire region, creating opportunities for growth and development 🙏
@ Thanks for your elaborate response! You aptly described what I wanted to say. Few years ago nobody in India would have imagined that there exists a constituency like this in Pakistan. I might sound bit weird but I believe such critical thinking is triggered by honest reflection also assisted by calm atmosphere, absence of unwanted debates between the two. Our shared history indeed a reality but I doubt majority really thinks so, on both sides. When acrimony takes a precedence, rationality has no place. Back here, there was a time Pakistan used to be a topic of coffee table/dinner table discussions everywhere ( especially in north and western side) but not anymore. Many attribute to India shifting towards right/ Hindutva politics etc which is nothing but stereotype. Fact of the matter is young India is more aspirational, the desire to compete with the west matters more than anything else. So, how can both prosper? Many believe we should have EU like or US-Canada like collaboration. I believe one size never fits all. The best way would be both nations should forget each other completely and focus on respective priorities. More the dialogue, more one upmanship and the desire to acquire/conquer rather than collaboration. No dialogue-no enmity-no fear for each other!! That said, there should be collaboration between sane minds on both side.
I sincerely hope we have sane minds on both sides and it’s heartening to see that you can take such a balanced perspective on a contentious topic. Your points highlight the importance of honest reflection, rationality, and a focus on progress over historical grievances. You’re very right that critical thinking and rational discourse flourish in calm environments, free from the noise of heated debates. When acrimony and hyper-nationalism dominate the narrative, they leave little room for genuine understanding or progress. On both sides of the border, shared history and heritage are undeniable realities but acknowledging them without being burdened by them requires maturity-something that grows only in atmospheres of peace and introspection. Your observation about young India shifting its focus from Pakistan to broader aspirations, such as competing with global powers, is significant. This reflects a generational change where material progress, innovation, and global standing take precedence over historical rivalries. While some attribute this to the rise of right-wing politics, it’s perhaps more reflective of a society evolving toward pragmatism and ambition. I will admit though that the question of how both nations can prosper is complex. The idea of an EU- or US-Canada-like collaboration is aspirational, but as you rightly pointed out, one size does not fit all. India and Pakistan have unique histories, political dynamics, and societal structures, making a direct replication of such models unlikely. Instead, as you suggested mutual prosperity might best be achieved by focusing inward-on respective priorities-rather than on each other. The notion of "no dialogue-no enmity" is intriguing and perhaps necessary in the short term. Reducing direct interactions can help cool tensions and allow each nation to address its internal challenges. However, collaboration between sane, rational minds on both sides remains crucial. Such engagements could focus on neutral areas like trade, climate change, education, or cultural exchanges, where mutual benefits outweigh ideological or political disagreements. Ultimately, a balanced approach that minimizes unnecessary confrontation while fostering practical cooperation in areas of shared interest could pave the way for a better future. It’s a long road, but the first steps lie in honest self-reflection, setting aside stereotypes, and prioritizing aspirations over acrimony-just as you’ve so eloquently described. Thank you for sharing your perspective; it offers a refreshing lens through which to view this complex relationship 🙏
Quite candid discussion. But i always wonder why none of the pakistani intellectual talks about total overhall of education curriculum in Pakistan right from kindergarten to Postgraduation. If Pakistan does that today, maybe it will be on track after 20 yrs.
Thank you so much! We really apperciate your feedback ♥️ I believe you're absolutely right and we did talk a lot about the Pakistani education system needing an overhaul in our podcast with Ayesha Jehanzeb. I think if Pakistan did overhaul that it will certainly be back on track in less than 20 years 🙏
It baffles me , that Nehru and Jinnah were so called intelligent people, did piss poor job looking after India. Still the Brit’s were smarter than all the smart people of India.
I think your observation there might be a bit of an oversimplification. I will agree that both Nehru and Jinnah, despite being regarded as intelligent leaders, struggled to fully address the complexities of post-colonial India and Pakistan. It is a sentiment shared by many who reflect on the challenges of that era. It’s essential to understand the immense difficulties they faced in leading two newly independent nations that had been deeply fractured by colonial rule, communal tensions, and Partition. Nehru’s vision for India was rooted in secularism, socialism, and modernity, but implementing these ideals in a vast, diverse, and newly partitioned country was an unprecedented challenge. His focus on state-led industrialization and building democratic institutions laid the foundation for India’s long-term development, but it also left gaps, particularly in addressing socio-economic inequalities and communal divides. Jinnah, on the other hand, faced an even greater challenge in Pakistan, a country born amidst violence and lacking administrative infrastructure, where he had to balance diverse ethnic, linguistic, and regional interests while establishing a cohesive national identity. The British, having ruled the subcontinent for nearly two centuries, wielded immense power and control through their policies, including "divide and rule," which sowed deep divisions among communities. While their exit marked the end of colonialism, the legacy of their policies-communal tensions, economic disparity, and administrative centralization-continued to haunt both nations. Even the idea of the governor-general as noted in the podcast, continues to exist in some shape or form. It’s arguable that the British, with their extensive global experience in governance, had the upper hand in exploiting divisions and managing the subcontinent for their benefit, even as they left behind unresolved conflicts. Please understand that while Nehru and Jinnah were undeniably intelligent and capable leaders, their leadership was constrained by the enormity of the tasks before them. The scars of colonialism, combined with the challenges of nation-building, communal violence, and managing expectations in deeply divided societies, meant that even the most competent leaders would struggle to achieve perfection. Reflecting on their legacies is important, not to diminish their contributions but to better understand the complexities of leadership in such turbulent times. It also underscores the need to learn from history to address present and future challenges more effectively. I really hope you are less baffled about the whole situation now 🙏
I think you are being unfair as the responsibility for the bloodshed cannot be attributed to him alone. Partition was the culmination of decades of communal tensions, political rivalries, and colonial mismanagement. I am sure you know that the British policy of "divide and rule," combined with their hasty withdrawal, created a volatile situation that no leader-Jinnah, Gandhi, or Nehru-could fully control. Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan stemmed from his belief that Muslims would face marginalization in a united India dominated by a Hindu majority. This belief, shared by many Muslims at the time, was shaped by years of perceived injustices and a lack of political representation. The decision to divide the subcontinent was ultimately made in consultation with the British and the Indian National Congress, making it a collective decision, not one forced solely by Jinnah. I hope you will agree that the violence during Partition was carried out by individuals and groups on both sides of the border and from all manners of faiths. While Jinnah’s rhetoric may have mobilized Muslims to support the creation of Pakistan, there is no evidence that he directly incited violence or intended for the horrific outcomes that followed. In fact, Jinnah made repeated calls for peace and order during this period. In his speech on August 11, 1947, Jinnah emphasized the need for religious tolerance and equality, stating, “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan”. That is the very basis of the secularism that Pakistan is supposed to have. Coming to the Kashmir issue, the facts of the matter show that the origins of the conflict lie in the princely state’s ambiguous status at the time of Partition. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, faced immense pressure to accede to either India or Pakistan. The tribal invasion by Pashtun forces from Pakistan, which was not directly ordered by Jinnah, escalated the conflict, but the Maharaja’s decision to accede to India under duress and the subsequent involvement of Indian troops are equally significant factors. Jinnah’s role in the Kashmir issue was reactive rather than proactive, as he sought to address the aspirations of Kashmir’s Muslim majority while responding to the unfolding crisis. Blaming Jinnah solely for the genocide during Partition and the Kashmir conflict oversimplifies a complex historical reality. These events were shaped by a combination of communal tensions, colonial policies, and decisions made by multiple leaders. While Jinnah’s political strategies and decisions can be critiqued, attributing the entirety of these tragedies to him ignores the broader context and the shared responsibility of all parties involved. I really hope you can be fair to history and see the various characters in the shades that they have been painted 🙏
On the note of Gandhi who supported khilafat movement which had nothing to so with india and its freedom movement, the bengal riot was started by Muslims with direct action day with murder of hindus in Bengal where Gandhi chose to go on hunger strike… gandhi also was keen for Nehru to have a passage between east and weat Pakistan running thru india managed by Pakistan
I will admit that as described by you Mahatma Gandhi’s support for the Khilafat Movement is a controversial aspect of his leadership. The movement, launched by Indian Muslims to protest the dismantling of the Ottoman Caliphate after World War I, was not directly linked to India's independence struggle. However, Gandhi saw it as an opportunity to unite Hindus and Muslims in a common cause against British colonial rule. While this alliance did lead to significant mobilization, critics argue that it may have inadvertently strengthened communal divisions, as the movement was rooted in religious sentiment rather than a broader nationalist agenda. The events surrounding Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, in Bengal were a tragic turning point. The All-India Muslim League’s call for the day led to violent communal riots in Kolkata, resulting in the deaths of thousands, primarily Hindus. The riots marked the beginning of an escalating cycle of violence that ultimately culminated in the Partition. Gandhi’s response to these riots, including his hunger strike, aimed at restoring communal harmony and curbing further violence. However, some viewed his actions as insufficient or biased, given the scale of the atrocities. The claim that Gandhi supported the idea of a passage between East and West Pakistan through Indian territory has been a topic of speculation. While there is no conclusive evidence to suggest he explicitly endorsed such a corridor, Gandhi’s overarching vision of peace and coexistence may have led him to explore compromises that could prevent further bloodshed during Partition. His ultimate goal was to minimize conflict, though critics argue that such ideas might have undermined India’s sovereignty. Gandhi’s approach during these critical years has faced scrutiny for its idealism and perceived lack of pragmatism in addressing the realities of communal tensions and political rivalries. However, his commitment to nonviolence and his efforts to mediate between communities also earned him respect as a moral leader. His strategies, while not without flaws, reflected his belief in humanity’s capacity for reconciliation and justice. I believe that these events highlight the complexities of leadership during tumultuous times. Gandhi Ji’s decisions, like those of other leaders, were influenced by the urgency and uncertainty of the moment. While his intentions may have been noble, their outcomes remain open to interpretation, reminding us of the challenges inherent in navigating the intersections of politics, religion, and social change. I really hope you can see the nuances there 🙏
What a disjointed discussion. This podcast should have been conducted in Urdu only, as the guest, who is a third rate journalist, struggles to form coherent sentences in English. The role of Punjab in the creation of Pak was zero but they love to discuss it. Pakistan was created by the Bengalis and Ashraafs of northern India but within a few years they were completely sidelined. The Benglais were forced out of the union and the Urdu speaking Muhajirs have had no influence on any significant matters. The country is effectiveyl run by the Punjab dominated military that ensures that it never becomes a fully functioning state as this would go against the interests of the generals. Sindhi prime ministers have been assassinated or hanged in Rawalpindi, KP has been ravaged by terrorism due to the policies of the Punjab dominated military, and Balochistan is treated as its de facto fiefdom. These Adina Begs have never created an empire or successfully run a country in their entire history. Do you really believe they can do it now?
Bharat is following footsteps of USA. We stil have lots of work too. We need to change constitution. Why? (1) Make motto from socialist to Capitalist Economy. (2)Constitution favors right now politicians and Sarkari babus ho are abusing power and looting aam janata. Paribarbad is everywhere. All parties have become defecto hereditory Monarchy. (3) 60% of Indians are very poor. If we have free enterprise and capitalist economy, it will change. (4) We need to cut down size of Ministers and beaucrats. Why we need so many Ministers and IAS policy makers. What is their output? Whaere is transparency? Where is the matrices to measure performence of Ministers, MPs, MLAs, IAS, etc. (5) If New York and California states with economy of allmost like India, can be run by one elected GOVERNOR, tell me why do we need so many Minsters in every state, why an army of Ministers? We khun chose rahe hain. We need a revolution in India. Thow current political system.British system did not work. Even UK is going downhill and becoming third world countries.
Although I like your podcast but how can you say India is theocracy or state of pandits ? I don't agree with the ideology of BJP as well but it doesn't mean they are rulers they have been elected by indian public pretty fairly. Ya we know their ideology is always been anti muslims or anti pakistan and yes there are consequences of this as well like communal tensions and hatred in society. But it doesn't mean that all indians specially Hindus like that kind of ideology. Look at the opposition no. in parliament they are equal to bjp. BJP is just in power because of their allies and a miracle in state of Odisha. Also please note that if congress is in power then you say India is a democracy but when bjp comes in power then you say India is theocracy 😂 ? Double standards? Bro BJP ke din bhi utne sahi nahi chal rahe pichle 10 saal me utna economic stress nahi tha to logo ne BJP ko vote de diya lekin corona ke baad ek economic stress hai middle classes or lower class me wo bjp ko le doobega ye wo khud bhi jante hai. Plus india is very diverse so ek ideology pure desh me dominate hi nahi kar sakti hai. I am pretty sure india sambhal jayega jab ye ek phase hai bas jisme BJP wo politics kar rahi hai jo sahayd mujhe ya aapko achhi nahi lag rahi lekin wo bhi ek time baad badlenge.
You raise some very valid points about the political dynamics in India, and your argument helps frame a more nuanced view of the current situation. Firstly, I agree that labeling India as a theocracy or a "state of pandits" oversimplifies the diverse and complex nature of the country. In fact, if you listen to the podcast Imtiaz Sahab says that India is unlikely to actually become a theocracy. India officially remains a constitutionally secular democracy where governance is determined by public mandate through elections. While BJP’s ideology may prioritize certain narratives that resonate with sections of the population, it does not mean that all Hindus or Indians support these ideologies. As you pointed out, the electoral system ensures representation of multiple viewpoints, with the opposition maintaining significant presence, even if fragmented at times. The critique of BJP as being anti-Muslim or anti-Pakistan is a sentiment many share, but it’s also true that not all Indians subscribe to these ideas. The diverse cultural and religious landscape of India inherently limits the dominance of any single ideology. The very nature of India's political system, with its coalitions, alliances, and state-level diversity, ensures that no party or ideology can sustain unchecked power indefinitely. You’re right in highlighting the economic stress post-COVID-19, which has impacted the middle and lower classes. This economic strain has also led to increasing scrutiny of BJP’s governance. No government, regardless of its ideological leanings, can survive long-term if it fails to address the basic economic and social needs of its population. This is where democratic systems like India’s offer the opportunity for change through elections. The comparison between labeling India a democracy under Congress and a theocracy under BJP does indeed seem like a double standard. While the political approach of BJP may differ, it does not change the foundational framework of India’s democracy. Instead of focusing on the ruling party, the discourse should revolve around holding all parties accountable for governance and ensuring they respect constitutional principles. Your optimism about this being a "phase" in Indian politics is reassuring. India has weathered many political and ideological shifts in its history and has emerged stronger because of its democratic resilience and cultural pluralism. As you rightly said, the political landscape in India is too diverse and dynamic for any one ideology to dominate indefinitely. Change is inevitable, and the democratic process ensures that the voice of the people remains paramount. Thank you for presenting such a balanced and hopeful perspective. It’s essential for discussions like these to rise above polarities and focus on understanding and solutions. Your insights reflect the resilience and complexity of India’s democracy, which is its greatest strength ♥️
While I appreciate your effort to discuss uncomfortable issues relating to the past, did you notice most people watching (or atleast commenting) are Indians, did you ever wonder why? I honestly don't see much of youth in Pakistan engaging in any intellectual activity ( of course my view is purely based on the things that I see in social media, talks like The black hole etc) eigther they're completely indifferent or they just don't care about their country's past, present or future. Anyway it's not what I wanted to write about. I read some comments and I'd like to highlight a couple of them 1. People first need to understand what 'secularism' means. First of all it's a western construct which seperates the authority between church and the state (governance), I don't like to get into the details of why it had to be done but even if the take that essence into today's context, it just should mean, state won't have anything to do with any religion. It's for everyone and everyone should be treated equally. It's for the elected government (in a democracy). What people fail to understand is, this fundamental concept of secularism is for the government and not the people. People can never be secular ( even if they don't follow any religion). Unfortunately, the meaning aswell as the essence of it is completely lost here. People often expect individuals to be secular which itself is funny to me. 2. Any society will have issues, different people handle it differently based on their own motives ( in a family of 5, each one might have a different view on any given topic . Let's say it's 3 son's, father and mother. If the 2 sons starts fighting over something ,the way a father deals with it could be entirely different from the mother or the other brother.. Think I've over simplified it but what I wanna say is, partition is a topic that's still perceived in a wide variety of ways, depending on the person you're talking to. What's important to talk about are the facts, what led to it, what was the motive, who were all involved, the major incidents which led to it, aftermath,all backed by official/public speeches, correspondence (letters etc). I would encourage everyone to have the interst and the ability to cross verify anything they listen to, especially these kind of topics. After that most importantly, LESSONS LEARNT /TO BE LEARNT. 3. Mr.Mukhbir (I assume that's your name, apologies if I'm wrong and pls correct me) I generally don't give Gyan (lecture or even talk) on religion but since almost all pakistanis that I've come across with have no clue about 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' (as people call it). A. The word Hindu is basically associated with the geographical identity of people (people living along side of the river Sindhu) and not the religion. B. 'Hinduism' as you know it today isn't a religion. Matter of fact, religion itself is a western construct associated with a perticular theism C. In India, what you know as 'Hindus' are not one religious construct or a set. Within what you know as a Hindu, there are multiple belief systems, philosophies. Westerners broke it down to the extent they could by adding the suffix 'ism' to them (for their ulterior motives ofcourse) such as Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism. Those that they couldn't comprehend, clubbed them and called them Hinduism (such as Dvaita, Advaita, Viaistadvita etc etc there are many more philosophies which are very different) as you can see it, there'll be full library of books covering these, isn't that simple at all. At best, you could perhaps group them all as DHARMIC way of living. What I'd like to emphasise here by telling all this is, Hindus (as you call them today) are inherently pluralistic and all welcoming. As you already might know about many gods in the so called Hinduism another Allah or a christ doesn't matter for most of us here but the problem is with people who don't think that way. In our culture inspite of all the differences in all those philosophies (few mentioned above), our way to understand the was through discussions and to sort out the differences the debates. This is not possible with some and that's the main concern which needs to be addressed. Lastly, what I'd love people like you to do in your country is to ignite a spark in people, especially youth with discussions on domestic issues, their potential solutions. Things like, understanding the root causes of the problems in the society, one at a time. Quote books, authors and encourage people to read so that it'll help your people and the country.
Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and articulate message. You raise a number of critical points that are worth addressing. First, your distinction about secularism is an important one. I believe that secularism, at its core, is about governance being neutral toward religion. It’s the idea that the state should not favor or discriminate against any religion and should treat all citizens equally, regardless of their faith. The same sentiments which were expressed by Qaid-e-Azam for Pakistan. The misconception here, as you rightly pointed out, is the expectation that individuals in a society should also embody this secularism. But secularism, in its true form, is meant to apply to the governance structure, not to the personal beliefs of individuals. People are inherently diverse in their beliefs, and secularism is about preventing the state from imposing religious values on them. It’s crucial to grasp this difference to understand how secularism operates within diverse societies like India or Pakistan. On the issue of Partition, your analogy of a family quarrel and different perspectives is very apt. Partition is, and will continue to be, a contentious and sensitive subject because it affected people deeply in different ways, and each side has its own interpretation of what happened. The key, as you said, is to rely on historical facts, documents, and speeches to understand the motivations and actions of the key players involved. It’s not just about blaming individuals like Jinnah, Gandhi, or the British, but understanding the broader forces at play: the colonial context, the rise of religious identities, and the political dynamics. What’s more important than assigning blame is learning the lessons from Partition-how national identities were manipulated, how religious divisions were intensified, and how policies of exclusion and violence unfolded. If we can understand these lessons, there’s hope that we don’t repeat the same mistakes. Both India and Pakistan must learn to foster a shared understanding of the past while focusing on building a better future. Your explanation of Hinduism, or "Dharmic traditions," is insightful. The fact that "Hinduism" as it is understood today is a Western construct, with multiple philosophies and systems of thought under one umbrella, is a critical point. The pluralistic nature of Hinduism, which embraces diverse beliefs, practices, and paths to understanding the divine, often gets reduced to a monolithic identity, which is misleading. Your explanation also underlines that despite differences within these systems, Hinduism has historically been a welcoming and inclusive tradition. The issues arise, as you noted, when individuals or groups try to impose a singular way of thinking and refuse to accept diversity-something that is a challenge not just for Hinduism but for any belief system. The key challenge today is how societies, including India, can maintain their pluralistic and inclusive traditions while addressing the rise of extremism and intolerance. The point you make about the lack of intellectual engagement among Pakistani youth is something I’ve noticed as well. I hope there will be more engagement coming from Pakistan but not presently. This disconnection from serious discourse and introspection about the country’s past and future is concerning. This can be attributed to several factors: socio-political instability, economic challenges, and the overwhelming influence of social media, where superficial opinions often dominate over well-researched views. However, it’s essential to create platforms where intellectual discourse and critical thinking can flourish. Encouraging youth to question, to read books, to engage in discussions, and to seek out diverse viewpoints can go a long way in nurturing a generation that is more reflective and informed about its history, present, and future. Your message about igniting a spark in Pakistani youth is incredibly important. It’s not just about discussing the past, but also addressing domestic issues-be it education, healthcare, corruption, or economic inequality-and finding solutions. Encouraging critical thought, supporting young authors, and providing platforms for debate and discussion can help tackle the root causes of societal problems. Much like in India, there’s a huge need to foster intellectual spaces in Pakistan where young people can engage in meaningful conversations that go beyond politics and religion, looking at the structural issues that impact their everyday lives. Finally, your call for more discussions on domestic issues, with a focus on solutions, is something that resonates deeply. Pakistan, like India, is at a crossroads, and it's essential that the younger generations take responsibility for understanding their shared history, questioning their present, and shaping a better future. Both countries need to reflect on the lessons of the past while striving toward inclusivity, equality, and understanding. Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It’s exactly these kinds of thoughtful, open discussions that can help foster a more informed and engaged public, both in Pakistan and India 🙏
So hindutva was the reason for partition as per the guest, interestingly the word hindutva is a recent construct by chitambram of Congress when they started to lose seat to BJP.
I think you may have misunderstood. Hindutva as a modern political construct can really not be seen as a reason for partition. Hope you had a chance to see the full podcast 🙏
Gandhi is the big villian for Hindus even more than jinnha...jinnha even did help hindus to grow by separating muslims.. Gandhi says every indian should be loyal to the queen of England and i would send more indians to WW2 if i could..he neglected hindus every time..he was so arrogant that he refused salute our tricolour..so Gandhi is villian.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I must admit I see Gandhi Jee in a different light. I believe that historical figures like Gandhi and Jinnah often evoke strong emotions based on differing interpretations of their actions and legacy. Therefore, it is important to examine their roles within the broader context of their time. Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and his leadership in the struggle for independence are widely recognized, but his decisions and priorities have also been critiqued by many, including some within the Hindu community. Similarly, Jinnah's role in the partition and the creation of Pakistan has left a lasting impact on the region's history and its people. I find it really hard to understand why Gandhi is seen as a villain today by so many Indians. All in all, debates about historical figures can help us understand the complexities of their contributions, but it’s vital to approach such discussions with nuance. They were humans, shaped by their circumstances and the challenges of their era often make them tragic figures like Jinnah. By exploring these perspectives, we can learn from history and strive for unity and mutual respect in the present 🙏
@MukhbirNama most of the young generation of Hindus hate Gandhi because of:- 1) Nehru was not choosen by 12 core committees of congress for pm candidate..they did select sardar patel..Gandhi got upset then patel step aside himself because of Gandhi's dirty politics.. 2)Gandhi says I'm loyal to British empire and every indian must be loyal to British empire.. 3)Due to Gandhi we pay pakistan 65cr and after 2 weeks pakistan did attack on us by using that money for weapons... 4)tell me one thing what Gandhi did specific for Hindu community so that Hindus should have some respect for him instead he did always support muslims against Hindus.. These are the reason to me to discard Gandhi...
Thank you for your offer to convert. I appreciate your perspective, but I am content with my faith, just as my ancestors were content with theirs in their own time and space. Faith is a deeply personal journey, and I believe in making my own decisions based on my time and context. Just as I respect your beliefs and heritage, I hope you can respect mine 🙏
An Islmaic pakistan is allowed to have Proper Islamiyat but if we rightly start giving the deserved importance to the culture and tradition of the land, then you converted followers of an arabic mazab are suddenly having a problem with that. Look nobody told them not to follow their mazab and not to get involved in the system. There unemployment and poverty is more related to their illiteracy and the corrupt elites among them. If you don't believe this and want to cry on some made up genocide, then keep crying as that will at least make you happy for the moment.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Brother you are doing a good job, keep it up.
Thank you so much! Really appreciate you saying that🙏
Jinnah had no contribution for the Independence of India yet divided the country!
Same for Gandhi and nehru. Thanks to President Roosvelt, not only Indian but many many countries became free from European colonizers (Frnce Spain, Itly, British). You have understand economy of world after 2nd WW and especially that of Britain.
@@amarnathjha8319 how is nehru gandhi did not contribute for independence of india??Both spent over 10 years each in jails and started many revolts against britishers.Are you some body from hindu mahasabha ( british boot lickers)
@@amarnathjha8319seriously! Nehru & Gandhi wanted united India while Jinnah preached division & hate
@@amarnathjha8319 ji aapki baat sahi ho skti per jinna wo tha jisne is mulk ko banta angrejo ke saath milkar
In 2024, Pakistanis are still deeply engaged in discussions about the 1947 partition, indicating that they have not fully moved past the event they desired. In contrast, for us Indians, the partition is a settled matter, long behind us. We view it as a positive outcome that allowed us to part ways with an unproductive, religiously extreme population. Without the partition, we might not have achieved the progress we see today and could have been trapped in a feudal societal structure, similar to what Pakistan continues to experience.
Thank you for appreciating the relevance of partition for a podcast on Jinnah. The Partition remains a deeply significant and emotional topic for both Pakistanis and Indians, though its interpretation and impact differ significantly. For Pakistan, partition is foundational to its national identity, symbolizing the creation of a homeland for Muslims. Ongoing discussions about this event in Pakistan reflect an attempt to reconcile the founders' vision with the realities of the present. In contrast, many Indians view partition as a settled matter, often framing it as a necessary event that allowed for the separation of two distinct paths. While India has celebrated its progress since independence, it is important to acknowledge that challenges such as caste discrimination, communal tensions, and regional disparities continue to impact its society, suggesting that partition did not entirely resolve the underlying divisions.
Your perspective that partition allowed India to move away from "an unproductive, religiously extreme population" and avoid a feudal societal structure oversimplifies the complexities on both sides of the border. Pakistan’s struggles with political instability, feudalism, and extremism are significant, but they do not define the entirety of the nation or its diverse population. Pakistan has also achieved successes in various fields, including a vibrant diaspora, advancements in science, and cultural resilience. Similarly, while India has made great strides in economic and social development, religious extremism and majoritarianism have also posed challenges to its secular framework.
The ongoing discourse around partition in Pakistan is not necessarily an indication of being stuck in the past but rather an effort to understand the roots of current challenges and shape a better future. In India, the relative lack of public focus on partition may suggest a sense of closure, yet the trauma and legacies of the event still linger in communities affected by the mass migrations and violence of that time. Both nations share a complex history shaped by partition, and while it is natural to draw comparisons, it is vital to approach such discussions with empathy and a nuanced understanding of the shared pain and divergent journeys that have shaped their respective paths. I hope that you can share that vision with us 🙏
@@indianavijay Mental regression, unlike Hindus ,mazhab is a non productive,parasitic mob ,who isnt capable of any innovation,wealth creation ,technological advancements after partition they lost their HOST( generally Hindu khatri sahukar/ moneylender) n unable to survive without loans or begging.
I really think your bigotry is coming through these words. Are you painting everyone from a specific minority with the same color? That would be really unfair.
@@MukhbirNama nah india has moved on..India's minority problem is not largely based on the history of partition..rather it's inherent characteristics of muslim society of subcontinent that they feel problem in assimaliting with the majority population who r Hindus..
It is sad to see that you are willing to paint an entire group with the same colors because that is how you have seen them. Perhaps there are different views which can be encouraged? 🙏
Want India to be secular and pakistan Islamic 😂😂😂😂
Ideally I would love to see every nation in the world be secular 🙏
@@MukhbirNama first become secular before advocating others
I can assure you there are many Muslims and Pakistanis who are secular 🙏
@MukhbirNama first make Pakistan country secular in constitution
I will try my best and update you on the results soon as I have them :)
Fully endorse analysis by Imtiaz Gillani sb..
Sirs, all said and done,Mr Jinnah did provide a resolution to longstanding hindu-muslim conflicts in the indian subcontinent.
The tragic part of the outcome was that all indian muslims did not migrate to pakistan in 1947, thereby creating a mess in the entire subcontinent.
Do you really think it would have been a better solution if All Muslims had been pushed to Pakistan? Even by force?
Thnx a lot...for taking majority of Zombies with u,u truly deserve Bharat ratna.
Thank you for saying that! All are welcome 🙏
Abt.M. A.jinnah
He certainly did create a lot of issues for India and received a moth eaten Pakistan for his troubles. A tragic character of history in some people's view.
@@MukhbirNama pakistan never recognised and never accepted India as a country
I believe Pakistan certainly has recognized and accepted India as a country. Perhaps you have better information than I do? :)
Great job.
Thank you! Cheers!
nice conversation
Thank you so much for saying that! Much appreciated 🙏
Is it fair to say that they didn't know about the future bloodshed, wheras direct action day and Punjab riots were started by themselves......
They do carry a lot of the blame for the Direct action day. Thank you for pointing it out 🙏
Jinnah was not a person with clarity who wanted to return to Bombay and live non-religious life and divided Hindustan for muslims. A completely opposite behaviour.
According to many sources and as described in the podcast Mr. Jinnah did indeed wish to retire at his villa in Bombay. Perhaps you have different sources for your information?
After watching many Pakistani progressive podcasts, I firmed my opinion that there are many people in Pakistan who are rational, liberal minded and we Indians can surely build rapport with them. However in reality they are tiny minority while majority are exactly opposite. They are the ones who drive the country. As you can see, India and Pakistan have the most stable and peaceful border currently. And, major reason behind this is, we aren’t talking to each other and thus no jingoism! In my honest opinion, both countries will benefit immensely if they stop thinking and infact remove each other completely from their minds. We have chosen altogether different paths after 1947, it is not possible to converge now. We can never be friends but at least we shouldn’t be enemies.
Your observation that there are progressive and liberal-minded individuals as well as podcasters in Pakistan is accurate and worth emphasizing. Like in any society, there are diverse voices and perspectives, ranging from conservative to progressive. The rational and open-minded individuals often advocate for peace, understanding, and mutual respect between nations, and their contributions are vital. However, as you rightly noted, the broader socio-political environment in Pakistan, shaped by historical, ideological, and economic factors, often leans in a direction that does not align with these progressive ideals.
Of course the stability of the India-Pakistan border in recent years is indeed noteworthy. It highlights how the absence of aggressive rhetoric or heightened engagement has contributed to a reduction in tensions. This pragmatic approach, where both nations focus on their own development rather than fixating on each other, could pave the way for long-term stability. Removing mutual antagonism from national narratives might allow both countries to address pressing domestic issues more effectively and independently.
Your point about the impossibility of convergence given the differing paths chosen after 1947 is also realistic. The foundational ideologies of India and Pakistan have created distinct identities that continue to shape their societies and politics. While it may not be feasible to achieve a friendship akin to that of allies, striving to avoid enmity is a commendable goal. Respectful coexistence, trade, cultural exchanges, and non-interference in each other's affairs could be stepping stones toward a more peaceful relationship.
Ultimately, acknowledging the shared history and cultural ties while respecting each other's distinct trajectories can foster a sense of mutual respect without forcing alignment. It is not about erasing the past but rather about learning to move forward with a focus on progress and peace. I believe that such an approach could benefit not only the two nations but also the entire region, creating opportunities for growth and development 🙏
@ Thanks for your elaborate response! You aptly described what I wanted to say.
Few years ago nobody in India would have imagined that there exists a constituency like this in Pakistan. I might sound bit weird but I believe such critical thinking is triggered by honest reflection also assisted by calm atmosphere, absence of unwanted debates between the two. Our shared history indeed a reality but I doubt majority really thinks so, on both sides. When acrimony takes a precedence, rationality has no place.
Back here, there was a time Pakistan used to be a topic of coffee table/dinner table discussions everywhere ( especially in north and western side) but not anymore. Many attribute to India shifting towards right/ Hindutva politics etc which is nothing but stereotype. Fact of the matter is young India is more aspirational, the desire to compete with the west matters more than anything else.
So, how can both prosper? Many believe we should have EU like or US-Canada like collaboration. I believe one size never fits all. The best way would be both nations should forget each other completely and focus on respective priorities. More the dialogue, more one upmanship and the desire to acquire/conquer rather than collaboration. No dialogue-no enmity-no fear for each other!! That said, there should be collaboration between sane minds on both side.
I sincerely hope we have sane minds on both sides and it’s heartening to see that you can take such a balanced perspective on a contentious topic. Your points highlight the importance of honest reflection, rationality, and a focus on progress over historical grievances. You’re very right that critical thinking and rational discourse flourish in calm environments, free from the noise of heated debates. When acrimony and hyper-nationalism dominate the narrative, they leave little room for genuine understanding or progress. On both sides of the border, shared history and heritage are undeniable realities but acknowledging them without being burdened by them requires maturity-something that grows only in atmospheres of peace and introspection.
Your observation about young India shifting its focus from Pakistan to broader aspirations, such as competing with global powers, is significant. This reflects a generational change where material progress, innovation, and global standing take precedence over historical rivalries. While some attribute this to the rise of right-wing politics, it’s perhaps more reflective of a society evolving toward pragmatism and ambition. I will admit though that the question of how both nations can prosper is complex. The idea of an EU- or US-Canada-like collaboration is aspirational, but as you rightly pointed out, one size does not fit all. India and Pakistan have unique histories, political dynamics, and societal structures, making a direct replication of such models unlikely. Instead, as you suggested mutual prosperity might best be achieved by focusing inward-on respective priorities-rather than on each other.
The notion of "no dialogue-no enmity" is intriguing and perhaps necessary in the short term. Reducing direct interactions can help cool tensions and allow each nation to address its internal challenges. However, collaboration between sane, rational minds on both sides remains crucial. Such engagements could focus on neutral areas like trade, climate change, education, or cultural exchanges, where mutual benefits outweigh ideological or political disagreements. Ultimately, a balanced approach that minimizes unnecessary confrontation while fostering practical cooperation in areas of shared interest could pave the way for a better future. It’s a long road, but the first steps lie in honest self-reflection, setting aside stereotypes, and prioritizing aspirations over acrimony-just as you’ve so eloquently described. Thank you for sharing your perspective; it offers a refreshing lens through which to view this complex relationship 🙏
@@MukhbirNama 🙏🙏🙏 more power to you!!! Luv your reasoning and all your podcasts in general…
@@AvinashPatil-1 Thank you so much! I really appreciate you saying that 🙏
No Pakistani or for that matter any Muslim in the comments section. 😮
I am certain there will be a few :) Perhaps not today but maybe tomorrow? 🙏
Quite candid discussion. But i always wonder why none of the pakistani intellectual talks about total overhall of education curriculum in Pakistan right from kindergarten to Postgraduation. If Pakistan does that today, maybe it will be on track after 20 yrs.
Thank you so much! We really apperciate your feedback ♥️ I believe you're absolutely right and we did talk a lot about the Pakistani education system needing an overhaul in our podcast with Ayesha Jehanzeb. I think if Pakistan did overhaul that it will certainly be back on track in less than 20 years 🙏
Should love our country ? True
Even though it can be tough at times. We must! :)
It baffles me , that Nehru and Jinnah were so called intelligent people, did piss poor job looking after India. Still the Brit’s were smarter than all the smart people of India.
I think your observation there might be a bit of an oversimplification. I will agree that both Nehru and Jinnah, despite being regarded as intelligent leaders, struggled to fully address the complexities of post-colonial India and Pakistan. It is a sentiment shared by many who reflect on the challenges of that era. It’s essential to understand the immense difficulties they faced in leading two newly independent nations that had been deeply fractured by colonial rule, communal tensions, and Partition. Nehru’s vision for India was rooted in secularism, socialism, and modernity, but implementing these ideals in a vast, diverse, and newly partitioned country was an unprecedented challenge. His focus on state-led industrialization and building democratic institutions laid the foundation for India’s long-term development, but it also left gaps, particularly in addressing socio-economic inequalities and communal divides. Jinnah, on the other hand, faced an even greater challenge in Pakistan, a country born amidst violence and lacking administrative infrastructure, where he had to balance diverse ethnic, linguistic, and regional interests while establishing a cohesive national identity.
The British, having ruled the subcontinent for nearly two centuries, wielded immense power and control through their policies, including "divide and rule," which sowed deep divisions among communities. While their exit marked the end of colonialism, the legacy of their policies-communal tensions, economic disparity, and administrative centralization-continued to haunt both nations. Even the idea of the governor-general as noted in the podcast, continues to exist in some shape or form. It’s arguable that the British, with their extensive global experience in governance, had the upper hand in exploiting divisions and managing the subcontinent for their benefit, even as they left behind unresolved conflicts.
Please understand that while Nehru and Jinnah were undeniably intelligent and capable leaders, their leadership was constrained by the enormity of the tasks before them. The scars of colonialism, combined with the challenges of nation-building, communal violence, and managing expectations in deeply divided societies, meant that even the most competent leaders would struggle to achieve perfection. Reflecting on their legacies is important, not to diminish their contributions but to better understand the complexities of leadership in such turbulent times. It also underscores the need to learn from history to address present and future challenges more effectively. I really hope you are less baffled about the whole situation now 🙏
Jinnah was responsible for thousands of innocent person's genocide,and also responsible for present kashmir problem
I think you are being unfair as the responsibility for the bloodshed cannot be attributed to him alone. Partition was the culmination of decades of communal tensions, political rivalries, and colonial mismanagement. I am sure you know that the British policy of "divide and rule," combined with their hasty withdrawal, created a volatile situation that no leader-Jinnah, Gandhi, or Nehru-could fully control.
Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan stemmed from his belief that Muslims would face marginalization in a united India dominated by a Hindu majority. This belief, shared by many Muslims at the time, was shaped by years of perceived injustices and a lack of political representation. The decision to divide the subcontinent was ultimately made in consultation with the British and the Indian National Congress, making it a collective decision, not one forced solely by Jinnah.
I hope you will agree that the violence during Partition was carried out by individuals and groups on both sides of the border and from all manners of faiths. While Jinnah’s rhetoric may have mobilized Muslims to support the creation of Pakistan, there is no evidence that he directly incited violence or intended for the horrific outcomes that followed. In fact, Jinnah made repeated calls for peace and order during this period. In his speech on August 11, 1947, Jinnah emphasized the need for religious tolerance and equality, stating, “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan”. That is the very basis of the secularism that Pakistan is supposed to have.
Coming to the Kashmir issue, the facts of the matter show that the origins of the conflict lie in the princely state’s ambiguous status at the time of Partition. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, faced immense pressure to accede to either India or Pakistan. The tribal invasion by Pashtun forces from Pakistan, which was not directly ordered by Jinnah, escalated the conflict, but the Maharaja’s decision to accede to India under duress and the subsequent involvement of Indian troops are equally significant factors. Jinnah’s role in the Kashmir issue was reactive rather than proactive, as he sought to address the aspirations of Kashmir’s Muslim majority while responding to the unfolding crisis.
Blaming Jinnah solely for the genocide during Partition and the Kashmir conflict oversimplifies a complex historical reality. These events were shaped by a combination of communal tensions, colonial policies, and decisions made by multiple leaders. While Jinnah’s political strategies and decisions can be critiqued, attributing the entirety of these tragedies to him ignores the broader context and the shared responsibility of all parties involved. I really hope you can be fair to history and see the various characters in the shades that they have been painted 🙏
On the note of Gandhi who supported khilafat movement which had nothing to so with india and its freedom movement, the bengal riot was started by Muslims with direct action day with murder of hindus in Bengal where Gandhi chose to go on hunger strike… gandhi also was keen for Nehru to have a passage between east and weat Pakistan running thru india managed by Pakistan
I will admit that as described by you Mahatma Gandhi’s support for the Khilafat Movement is a controversial aspect of his leadership. The movement, launched by Indian Muslims to protest the dismantling of the Ottoman Caliphate after World War I, was not directly linked to India's independence struggle. However, Gandhi saw it as an opportunity to unite Hindus and Muslims in a common cause against British colonial rule. While this alliance did lead to significant mobilization, critics argue that it may have inadvertently strengthened communal divisions, as the movement was rooted in religious sentiment rather than a broader nationalist agenda.
The events surrounding Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, in Bengal were a tragic turning point. The All-India Muslim League’s call for the day led to violent communal riots in Kolkata, resulting in the deaths of thousands, primarily Hindus. The riots marked the beginning of an escalating cycle of violence that ultimately culminated in the Partition. Gandhi’s response to these riots, including his hunger strike, aimed at restoring communal harmony and curbing further violence. However, some viewed his actions as insufficient or biased, given the scale of the atrocities.
The claim that Gandhi supported the idea of a passage between East and West Pakistan through Indian territory has been a topic of speculation. While there is no conclusive evidence to suggest he explicitly endorsed such a corridor, Gandhi’s overarching vision of peace and coexistence may have led him to explore compromises that could prevent further bloodshed during Partition. His ultimate goal was to minimize conflict, though critics argue that such ideas might have undermined India’s sovereignty.
Gandhi’s approach during these critical years has faced scrutiny for its idealism and perceived lack of pragmatism in addressing the realities of communal tensions and political rivalries. However, his commitment to nonviolence and his efforts to mediate between communities also earned him respect as a moral leader. His strategies, while not without flaws, reflected his belief in humanity’s capacity for reconciliation and justice.
I believe that these events highlight the complexities of leadership during tumultuous times. Gandhi Ji’s decisions, like those of other leaders, were influenced by the urgency and uncertainty of the moment. While his intentions may have been noble, their outcomes remain open to interpretation, reminding us of the challenges inherent in navigating the intersections of politics, religion, and social change. I really hope you can see the nuances there 🙏
What a disjointed discussion. This podcast should have been conducted in Urdu only, as the guest, who is a third rate journalist, struggles to form coherent sentences in English.
The role of Punjab in the creation of Pak was zero but they love to discuss it.
Pakistan was created by the Bengalis and Ashraafs of northern India but within a few years they were completely sidelined. The Benglais were forced out of the union and the Urdu speaking Muhajirs have had no influence on any significant matters.
The country is effectiveyl run by the Punjab dominated military that ensures that it never becomes a fully functioning state as this would go against the interests of the generals.
Sindhi prime ministers have been assassinated or hanged in Rawalpindi, KP has been ravaged by terrorism due to the policies of the Punjab dominated military, and Balochistan is treated as its de facto fiefdom.
These Adina Begs have never created an empire or successfully run a country in their entire history. Do you really believe they can do it now?
Forgot to mention the name of the Muhajir PM Liaquat AK who also became the victim of the thuggery of the Punjabi army in its den Rawalpindi.
Bharat is following footsteps of USA. We stil have lots of work too. We need to change constitution.
Why?
(1) Make motto from socialist to Capitalist Economy.
(2)Constitution favors right now politicians and Sarkari babus ho are abusing power and looting aam janata. Paribarbad is everywhere. All parties have become defecto hereditory Monarchy.
(3) 60% of Indians are very poor. If we have free enterprise and capitalist economy, it will change.
(4) We need to cut down size of Ministers and beaucrats. Why we need so many Ministers and IAS policy makers. What is their output? Whaere is transparency? Where is the matrices to measure performence of Ministers, MPs, MLAs, IAS, etc.
(5) If New York and California states with economy of allmost like India, can be run by one elected GOVERNOR, tell me why do we need so many Minsters in every state, why an army of Ministers?
We khun chose rahe hain.
We need a revolution in India. Thow current political system.British system did not work. Even UK is going downhill and becoming third world countries.
Although I like your podcast but how can you say India is theocracy or state of pandits ? I don't agree with the ideology of BJP as well but it doesn't mean they are rulers they have been elected by indian public pretty fairly. Ya we know their ideology is always been anti muslims or anti pakistan and yes there are consequences of this as well like communal tensions and hatred in society. But it doesn't mean that all indians specially Hindus like that kind of ideology. Look at the opposition no. in parliament they are equal to bjp. BJP is just in power because of their allies and a miracle in state of Odisha. Also please note that if congress is in power then you say India is a democracy but when bjp comes in power then you say India is theocracy 😂 ? Double standards? Bro BJP ke din bhi utne sahi nahi chal rahe pichle 10 saal me utna economic stress nahi tha to logo ne BJP ko vote de diya lekin corona ke baad ek economic stress hai middle classes or lower class me wo bjp ko le doobega ye wo khud bhi jante hai. Plus india is very diverse so ek ideology pure desh me dominate hi nahi kar sakti hai. I am pretty sure india sambhal jayega jab ye ek phase hai bas jisme BJP wo politics kar rahi hai jo sahayd mujhe ya aapko achhi nahi lag rahi lekin wo bhi ek time baad badlenge.
You raise some very valid points about the political dynamics in India, and your argument helps frame a more nuanced view of the current situation. Firstly, I agree that labeling India as a theocracy or a "state of pandits" oversimplifies the diverse and complex nature of the country. In fact, if you listen to the podcast Imtiaz Sahab says that India is unlikely to actually become a theocracy. India officially remains a constitutionally secular democracy where governance is determined by public mandate through elections. While BJP’s ideology may prioritize certain narratives that resonate with sections of the population, it does not mean that all Hindus or Indians support these ideologies. As you pointed out, the electoral system ensures representation of multiple viewpoints, with the opposition maintaining significant presence, even if fragmented at times.
The critique of BJP as being anti-Muslim or anti-Pakistan is a sentiment many share, but it’s also true that not all Indians subscribe to these ideas. The diverse cultural and religious landscape of India inherently limits the dominance of any single ideology. The very nature of India's political system, with its coalitions, alliances, and state-level diversity, ensures that no party or ideology can sustain unchecked power indefinitely. You’re right in highlighting the economic stress post-COVID-19, which has impacted the middle and lower classes. This economic strain has also led to increasing scrutiny of BJP’s governance. No government, regardless of its ideological leanings, can survive long-term if it fails to address the basic economic and social needs of its population. This is where democratic systems like India’s offer the opportunity for change through elections.
The comparison between labeling India a democracy under Congress and a theocracy under BJP does indeed seem like a double standard. While the political approach of BJP may differ, it does not change the foundational framework of India’s democracy. Instead of focusing on the ruling party, the discourse should revolve around holding all parties accountable for governance and ensuring they respect constitutional principles. Your optimism about this being a "phase" in Indian politics is reassuring. India has weathered many political and ideological shifts in its history and has emerged stronger because of its democratic resilience and cultural pluralism. As you rightly said, the political landscape in India is too diverse and dynamic for any one ideology to dominate indefinitely. Change is inevitable, and the democratic process ensures that the voice of the people remains paramount.
Thank you for presenting such a balanced and hopeful perspective. It’s essential for discussions like these to rise above polarities and focus on understanding and solutions. Your insights reflect the resilience and complexity of India’s democracy, which is its greatest strength ♥️
While I appreciate your effort to discuss uncomfortable issues relating to the past, did you notice most people watching (or atleast commenting) are Indians, did you ever wonder why? I honestly don't see much of youth in Pakistan engaging in any intellectual activity ( of course my view is purely based on the things that I see in social media, talks like The black hole etc) eigther they're completely indifferent or they just don't care about their country's past, present or future. Anyway it's not what I wanted to write about. I read some comments and I'd like to highlight a couple of them
1. People first need to understand what 'secularism' means. First of all it's a western construct which seperates the authority between church and the state (governance), I don't like to get into the details of why it had to be done but even if the take that essence into today's context, it just should mean, state won't have anything to do with any religion. It's for everyone and everyone should be treated equally.
It's for the elected government (in a democracy).
What people fail to understand is, this fundamental concept of secularism is for the government and not the people. People can never be secular ( even if they don't follow any religion). Unfortunately, the meaning aswell as the essence of it is completely lost here. People often expect individuals to be secular which itself is funny to me.
2. Any society will have issues, different people handle it differently based on their own motives ( in a family of 5, each one might have a different view on any given topic . Let's say it's 3 son's, father and mother. If the 2 sons starts fighting over something ,the way a father deals with it could be entirely different from the mother or the other brother.. Think I've over simplified it but what I wanna say is, partition is a topic that's still perceived in a wide variety of ways, depending on the person you're talking to. What's important to talk about are the facts, what led to it, what was the motive, who were all involved, the major incidents which led to it, aftermath,all backed by official/public speeches, correspondence (letters etc). I would encourage everyone to have the interst and the ability to cross verify anything they listen to, especially these kind of topics. After that most importantly, LESSONS LEARNT /TO BE LEARNT.
3. Mr.Mukhbir (I assume that's your name, apologies if I'm wrong and pls correct me) I generally don't give Gyan (lecture or even talk) on religion but since almost all pakistanis that I've come across with have no clue about 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' (as people call it).
A. The word Hindu is basically associated with the geographical identity of people (people living along side of the river Sindhu) and not the religion.
B. 'Hinduism' as you know it today isn't a religion. Matter of fact, religion itself is a western construct associated with a perticular theism
C. In India, what you know as 'Hindus' are not one religious construct or a set. Within what you know as a Hindu, there are multiple belief systems, philosophies. Westerners broke it down to the extent they could by adding the suffix 'ism' to them (for their ulterior motives ofcourse) such as Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism. Those that they couldn't comprehend, clubbed them and called them Hinduism (such as Dvaita, Advaita, Viaistadvita etc etc there are many more philosophies which are very different) as you can see it, there'll be full library of books covering these, isn't that simple at all. At best, you could perhaps group them all as DHARMIC way of living. What I'd like to emphasise here by telling all this is, Hindus (as you call them today) are inherently pluralistic and all welcoming. As you already might know about many gods in the so called Hinduism another Allah or a christ doesn't matter for most of us here but the problem is with people who don't think that way.
In our culture inspite of all the differences in all those philosophies (few mentioned above), our way to understand the was through discussions and to sort out the differences the debates. This is not possible with some and that's the main concern which needs to be addressed.
Lastly, what I'd love people like you to do in your country is to ignite a spark in people, especially youth with discussions on domestic issues, their potential solutions. Things like, understanding the root causes of the problems in the society, one at a time. Quote books, authors and encourage people to read so that it'll help your people and the country.
Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and articulate message. You raise a number of critical points that are worth addressing. First, your distinction about secularism is an important one. I believe that secularism, at its core, is about governance being neutral toward religion. It’s the idea that the state should not favor or discriminate against any religion and should treat all citizens equally, regardless of their faith. The same sentiments which were expressed by Qaid-e-Azam for Pakistan. The misconception here, as you rightly pointed out, is the expectation that individuals in a society should also embody this secularism. But secularism, in its true form, is meant to apply to the governance structure, not to the personal beliefs of individuals. People are inherently diverse in their beliefs, and secularism is about preventing the state from imposing religious values on them. It’s crucial to grasp this difference to understand how secularism operates within diverse societies like India or Pakistan.
On the issue of Partition, your analogy of a family quarrel and different perspectives is very apt. Partition is, and will continue to be, a contentious and sensitive subject because it affected people deeply in different ways, and each side has its own interpretation of what happened. The key, as you said, is to rely on historical facts, documents, and speeches to understand the motivations and actions of the key players involved. It’s not just about blaming individuals like Jinnah, Gandhi, or the British, but understanding the broader forces at play: the colonial context, the rise of religious identities, and the political dynamics. What’s more important than assigning blame is learning the lessons from Partition-how national identities were manipulated, how religious divisions were intensified, and how policies of exclusion and violence unfolded. If we can understand these lessons, there’s hope that we don’t repeat the same mistakes. Both India and Pakistan must learn to foster a shared understanding of the past while focusing on building a better future.
Your explanation of Hinduism, or "Dharmic traditions," is insightful. The fact that "Hinduism" as it is understood today is a Western construct, with multiple philosophies and systems of thought under one umbrella, is a critical point. The pluralistic nature of Hinduism, which embraces diverse beliefs, practices, and paths to understanding the divine, often gets reduced to a monolithic identity, which is misleading. Your explanation also underlines that despite differences within these systems, Hinduism has historically been a welcoming and inclusive tradition. The issues arise, as you noted, when individuals or groups try to impose a singular way of thinking and refuse to accept diversity-something that is a challenge not just for Hinduism but for any belief system. The key challenge today is how societies, including India, can maintain their pluralistic and inclusive traditions while addressing the rise of extremism and intolerance.
The point you make about the lack of intellectual engagement among Pakistani youth is something I’ve noticed as well. I hope there will be more engagement coming from Pakistan but not presently. This disconnection from serious discourse and introspection about the country’s past and future is concerning. This can be attributed to several factors: socio-political instability, economic challenges, and the overwhelming influence of social media, where superficial opinions often dominate over well-researched views. However, it’s essential to create platforms where intellectual discourse and critical thinking can flourish. Encouraging youth to question, to read books, to engage in discussions, and to seek out diverse viewpoints can go a long way in nurturing a generation that is more reflective and informed about its history, present, and future.
Your message about igniting a spark in Pakistani youth is incredibly important. It’s not just about discussing the past, but also addressing domestic issues-be it education, healthcare, corruption, or economic inequality-and finding solutions. Encouraging critical thought, supporting young authors, and providing platforms for debate and discussion can help tackle the root causes of societal problems. Much like in India, there’s a huge need to foster intellectual spaces in Pakistan where young people can engage in meaningful conversations that go beyond politics and religion, looking at the structural issues that impact their everyday lives.
Finally, your call for more discussions on domestic issues, with a focus on solutions, is something that resonates deeply. Pakistan, like India, is at a crossroads, and it's essential that the younger generations take responsibility for understanding their shared history, questioning their present, and shaping a better future. Both countries need to reflect on the lessons of the past while striving toward inclusivity, equality, and understanding. Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It’s exactly these kinds of thoughtful, open discussions that can help foster a more informed and engaged public, both in Pakistan and India 🙏
So hindutva was the reason for partition as per the guest, interestingly the word hindutva is a recent construct by chitambram of Congress when they started to lose seat to BJP.
I think you may have misunderstood. Hindutva as a modern political construct can really not be seen as a reason for partition. Hope you had a chance to see the full podcast 🙏
Gandhi is the big villian for Hindus even more than jinnha...jinnha even did help hindus to grow by separating muslims..
Gandhi says every indian should be loyal to the queen of England and i would send more indians to WW2 if i could..he neglected hindus every time..he was so arrogant that he refused salute our tricolour..so Gandhi is villian.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I must admit I see Gandhi Jee in a different light. I believe that historical figures like Gandhi and Jinnah often evoke strong emotions based on differing interpretations of their actions and legacy. Therefore, it is important to examine their roles within the broader context of their time. Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and his leadership in the struggle for independence are widely recognized, but his decisions and priorities have also been critiqued by many, including some within the Hindu community. Similarly, Jinnah's role in the partition and the creation of Pakistan has left a lasting impact on the region's history and its people. I find it really hard to understand why Gandhi is seen as a villain today by so many Indians.
All in all, debates about historical figures can help us understand the complexities of their contributions, but it’s vital to approach such discussions with nuance. They were humans, shaped by their circumstances and the challenges of their era often make them tragic figures like Jinnah. By exploring these perspectives, we can learn from history and strive for unity and mutual respect in the present 🙏
@@MukhbirNama typical Pakistani Lahori Churan aur Rawalpindi manjan 🤓
Absolutely! That is the best choran 🙏
@@MukhbirNama typical Pakistani Lahori Churan aur Rawalpindi manjan 🤓
@MukhbirNama most of the young generation of Hindus hate Gandhi because of:-
1) Nehru was not choosen by 12 core committees of congress for pm candidate..they did select sardar patel..Gandhi got upset then patel step aside himself because of Gandhi's dirty politics..
2)Gandhi says I'm loyal to British empire and every indian must be loyal to British empire..
3)Due to Gandhi we pay pakistan 65cr and after 2 weeks pakistan did attack on us by using that money for weapons...
4)tell me one thing what Gandhi did specific for Hindu community so that Hindus should have some respect for him instead he did always support muslims against Hindus..
These are the reason to me to discard Gandhi...
You should revert back to Hinduism jo apke purkhon ka religion hai. Dont waste time on past history. Convert back to Hinduism. Be brave!
Thank you for your offer to convert. I appreciate your perspective, but I am content with my faith, just as my ancestors were content with theirs in their own time and space. Faith is a deeply personal journey, and I believe in making my own decisions based on my time and context. Just as I respect your beliefs and heritage, I hope you can respect mine 🙏
Very good talk , I appreciate it but rest assured India is not going to behave like theocratic county.
@@rajivdas2937 lol another pakistani acting as Indian
I really hope that it doesn't and even Imtiaz Sahab agrees that it may not. However he did suggest it is becoming more nationalist.
@@MukhbirNama india should be a theocratic country like Pakistan
That might be a dangerous situation for the world and a sad state for India. Let us hope that does not happen 🙏
@@MukhbirNama lol when a theocratic state like Pakistan is not a sad state for itself why would it be the case for India?
What about tolerance ,fairness . Live and live for minorities
I completely agree that those should be fundamental principles for us all 🙏
An Islmaic pakistan is allowed to have Proper Islamiyat but if we rightly start giving the deserved importance to the culture and tradition of the land, then you converted followers of an arabic mazab are suddenly having a problem with that. Look nobody told them not to follow their mazab and not to get involved in the system. There unemployment and poverty is more related to their illiteracy and the corrupt elites among them. If you don't believe this and want to cry on some made up genocide, then keep crying as that will at least make you happy for the moment.