As an atheist or agnostic, I would rather live in Hindu rashtra than in Pakistan. Hindu rashtra doesn't force their stupid ideology on non-religious people and there is a space for atheistic thoughts to thrive. Again this is non-ideal - but given a choice, this is I would chose.
the most hilarious thing is that this podcast is in English which I assume 95% of Pakistani don't understand...I dont understand who their target audience is....whatever kudos to the good effort even though you guys are trying very hard not to bring the nastiest of Iqbal, maududi, sir syyed, Jinnah...
Dear pervez shb, it is very sad that my grand father sir currimbhoy was with jinnah and sacrificed his life for the creation of Pakistan. My father did all that was possible to bring his name into the limelight so people could see the struggle behind the birth of our country, but unfortunately nothing happened.
An objective discussion, as always from Prof Hoodbhoy. It is intriguing that Badshah Khan' remains a forgotten man in his land and his life and philosophy does not resonate among what is left of the "progressive" section of Pakistani society.
moreover that chaparganju happy go lucky guy shaheryar did not mention the state of affairs of hindus in pakistan and bangladesh when he was worried about secularism in india
There is something to be learnt from Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy for all Indians as well! Dr. Hoodbhoy's analyses makes a lot of sense; India and Indian Muslims are not interested anymore in anything of Pakistan; India is also not interested any further to keep up the Trade links and inter-family visits. Though this is unfortunate for the ordinary folks, it is what it is, and what will be for the rest of this century!
Both participants presuppose that India is a Hindu rashtra. Totally overlooking its secular constitution. It’s still the view of the party in power. Not enshrined in the constitution.
Very thoughtful, decent and unbiased discourse. This is how history must be discussed. Not like others who resort to jingoism and chest thumping. Simply brilliant.
@Dr.Hoodbhoy You have not been honest when you said Sir Syed Ahmed Khan looked at the Bengali Muslims with contempt. In his speeches he wasn't referring to the poor Bengali Muslim peasants but to the upper caste Hindu Bengalis whom he thought had created Congress as a step towards independence of India from British rule. He was expressing his wariness at the thought of Hindus gaining independence as that would lead to subjugation of the Muslims of the subcontinent which is the genesis of 2 nation theory. Fact is the elite Muslims of undivided India whose ancestors came from mid east and central Asia preferred to be ruled by the British rather than be in an independent India dominated by the Hindus whom they considered their subjects to be lorded over. Sir Syed didn't consider the Bengalis as a martial race but considered them far ahead of the Muslims in education. Sir Syed in those days considered the Muslims to be backward in trade and education. His views were not only extremely obsequious to the British, but also treacherous considering the fact how East India Company had butchered the Muslims of Delhi and in other parts of India which took part in the sepoy mutiny. But, when it came to independence of India, according to him it would lead to a power struggle between the Hindus and the Muslims. If this happened, his Pathan kinsmen would flood into India leading to rivers of blood from Punjab to Bengal. And this is what happened. The partition of Punjab was far more bloody than Bengal and Sindh because many Pathans were involved in the ethnic cleansing of Pakistani Punjab. The Khans of Punjab didn't allow even one refugee from India to step into Punjab. All the refugees from India were sent to Sindh. The place where they settled ended up as the largest slum in the world. The idea of Pakistan was defeated in 1950 when Pakistan closed its borders to Indian Muslims. Pakistan not only closed its borders to Muslims from India but started state sponsored ethnic cleansing of non Muslims in Sindh and East Bengal. Mercifully the government in India didn't reciprocate. If that happened Pakistan would have collapsed in the 1950s.
Dear Hoodbhoy I'm your ardent follower but fail to understand why you discuss politics whereas your forte is science. Politics is a totally different field from science and has no parameters or set rules. I, therefore, request you not to discuss the validity of Pakistan.
He has been studying and analyzing politics for many decades. So, he is entitled to share his views with wider audience. Of course, you are free to disagree with him.
As an atheist or agnostic, I would rather live in Hindu rashtra than in Pakistan. Hindu rashtra doesn't force their stupid ideology on non-religious people and there is a space for atheistic thoughts to thrive. Again this is non-ideal - but given a choice, this is I would chose.
Such a delight to relearn history in different light
Waiting for #7 of 16. Thanks
A trivial correction if you permit, Salarjung was the Prime Minister, not Nizam , of Hyderabad DN Province.
the most hilarious thing is that this podcast is in English which I assume 95% of Pakistani don't understand...I dont understand who their target audience is....whatever kudos to the good effort even though you guys are trying very hard not to bring the nastiest of Iqbal, maududi, sir syyed, Jinnah...
Dear pervez shb, it is very sad that my grand father sir currimbhoy was with jinnah and sacrificed his life for the creation of Pakistan. My father did all that was possible to bring his name into the limelight so people could see the struggle behind the birth of our country, but unfortunately nothing happened.
An objective discussion, as always from Prof Hoodbhoy. It is intriguing that Badshah Khan' remains a forgotten man in his land and his life and philosophy does not resonate among what is left of the "progressive" section of Pakistani society.
❤
Thanks for sharing, sir ,
Excellent discussion.... 👍👍
moreover that chaparganju happy go lucky guy shaheryar did not mention the state of affairs of hindus in pakistan and bangladesh when he was worried about secularism in india
Discussion on India by Pakistanis
There is something to be learnt from Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy for all Indians as well! Dr. Hoodbhoy's analyses makes a lot of sense; India and Indian Muslims are not interested anymore in anything of Pakistan; India is also not interested any further to keep up the Trade links and inter-family visits. Though this is unfortunate for the ordinary folks, it is what it is, and what will be for the rest of this century!
Both participants presuppose that India is a Hindu rashtra. Totally overlooking its secular constitution. It’s still the view of the party in power. Not enshrined in the constitution.
Maudodi did not die in New York City he died in Buffalo New York
Very thoughtful, decent and unbiased discourse. This is how history must be discussed. Not like others who resort to jingoism and chest thumping.
Simply brilliant.
Professor Sahib, abul KALAM Azad as a education minister rewrite distorted highschool history books. Glorified Mughals
Please use his name correctly Hoodbhai
@Dr.Hoodbhoy
You have not been honest when you said Sir Syed Ahmed Khan looked at the Bengali Muslims with contempt.
In his speeches he wasn't referring to the poor Bengali Muslim peasants but to the upper caste Hindu Bengalis whom he thought had created Congress as a step towards independence of India from British rule.
He was expressing his wariness at the thought of Hindus gaining independence as that would lead to subjugation of the Muslims of the subcontinent which is the genesis of 2 nation theory.
Fact is the elite Muslims of undivided India whose ancestors came from mid east and central Asia preferred to be ruled by the British rather than be in an independent India dominated by the Hindus whom they considered their subjects to be lorded over.
Sir Syed didn't consider the Bengalis as a martial race but considered them far ahead of the Muslims in education.
Sir Syed in those days considered the Muslims to be backward in trade and education.
His views were not only extremely obsequious to the British, but also treacherous considering the fact how East India Company had butchered the Muslims of Delhi and in other parts of India which took part in the sepoy mutiny.
But, when it came to independence of India, according to him it would lead to a power struggle between the Hindus and the Muslims. If this happened, his Pathan kinsmen would flood into India leading to rivers of blood from Punjab to Bengal.
And this is what happened.
The partition of Punjab was far more bloody than Bengal and Sindh because many Pathans were involved in the ethnic cleansing of Pakistani Punjab.
The Khans of Punjab didn't allow even one refugee from India to step into Punjab. All the refugees from India were sent to Sindh. The place where they settled ended up as the largest slum in the world.
The idea of Pakistan was defeated in 1950 when Pakistan closed its borders to Indian Muslims.
Pakistan not only closed its borders to Muslims from India but started state sponsored ethnic cleansing of non Muslims in Sindh and East Bengal.
Mercifully the government in India didn't reciprocate. If that happened Pakistan would have collapsed in the 1950s.
Professor sahib certain things is not correct what you say
Dear Hoodbhoy I'm your ardent follower but fail to understand why you discuss politics whereas your forte is science. Politics is a totally different field from science and has no parameters or set rules. I, therefore, request you not to discuss the validity of Pakistan.
He has been studying and analyzing politics for many decades. So, he is entitled to share his views with wider audience. Of course, you are free to disagree with him.