If Jinnah was unhappy with congress as it was not secular according to Jinnah, then why would he joined AIML which was based on non secular ideology? He should have created a new party which would have been more secular than Congress. Instead he joined, AIML which was not secular at all.
You have no understanding of Jinnah....He joined AIML in 1913 while remaining a prominent congress leader because he wanted to bring Muslims and Hindus together in one fold ...thts why he was titled as Biggest AMBASSADOR OF HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY. And AIML's manifesto didn't include marginalization of any community or preferential treatment of Muslims but rather it advocated equal treatment of Muslims without any prejudice.
@@Rathore12438AIML wanted the Muslims of Bharat to have a political representation and political power that was MUCH GREATER then their share of the population (24%).
Brilliant explanation by comrade Taimur. Yes, only Jinnah was fighting for India’s Independence. That’s why the British Viceroys decided to put Congress leaders in jails so that they could secretly enjoy the luxuries offered by the British Raj in Indian jails while Jinnah was the only leader allowed by the British government to roam around and fight for India’s Independence. 😂😂😂
@@Taimur_Laal Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic". Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that: "Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
Thts because Jinnah had been a practicing lawyer all his life and was considered the best amongst the lot. Because of this connection Jinnah believed in constitutional measures and fighting for independence while remaining within the ambit of law. He was not inclined towards street politics and agitation.
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allowed Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan. Coming to the rant of Hindutva in the comment section in attempt to justify Jinnah's vision, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. Hindutva is not action. Jihad is action. Islamic Invasion and destruction of temples were action. Hindutva is just a reaction. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it. Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha. Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar. He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
@@Elitistlahori Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allowed Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan. Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it. Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha. Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar. He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
Another big question is that, why did Jinnah join the Muslim league many years prior to Gandhi becoming the leader of the congress party. So according to Dr Taimur, when he joined the Muslim league, the congress was still secular. Meaning he had clear proclivities towards Islam and did not believe in secularism. Its either this or that Jinnah saw the tell tail signs of the hinduisation of the congress even before Gandhi coming into power and decided that it was time to join an interest group that would look after the well being of his own people. Muslims always side with secular progressive parties like Jinnah did wherever in the world we are in a minority like in India, US and Britain. Its a way of coping and survival. Jinnah showed what he was truly about when he joined the Muslim league and advocated for a separate country for Muslims.
If jinnah had realized that congress isn't secular party and that he was secular himself. Why was he himself was a leader of AIML before resigning from Congress? Didn't he know that muslim league as well wasn't a secular party? Why didn't he make his own party if he was a secular? May be it was too late then.
It's ironic that Gandhi Ji was assassinated over allegations of appeasing Muslims, while Jinnah Ji accused him of transforming the Congress into a Hindu organization. Additionally, it's worth considering that if the Congress had truly been a Hindu organization, there wouldn't be so many Muslims in India today.
There are multiple way to battle ,hard power projections is not worth considering every time .There is the systematic degradation of minorities either in the form of first past the poll election system or alienation at the societal level .Moreover according to some reports the condition of muslims are worst than Dalits in India.
Jinnah’s criticism was about how Congress, under the guise of secularism, began leaning towards Hindu majority interests. The fact that there are still many Muslims in India doesn’t address Jinnah’s core concern about their political marginalization and the dominance of Hindu influence in what was supposed to be a secular and inclusive party. Gandhi’s assassination doesn’t negate the criticism levied by Jinnah; if anything, it speaks to just how fascist some parts of the Hindu population had become-something that was purposely exacerbated by the British after the 1857 mutiny.
@@rahilshah68 there is a reason behind it.. Indian muslim never gave education importance.. they believe that they need to increase the number rather than educate themselves. Hence even in 2011 Indian muslim had 68% education compared to 73% for Hindu , 81% for buddist, 84.5% for Christian and 94% for jains. While Christans Sikh Jain buddist and Hindus became open to education, Muslims was suspicious. This was the group mentality. Many Muslims still believe that western education is haram . It will take Muslim kids especially girls away from deen ( belief ).. Hence girl participation rate for girls in Muslim population is only 62%
So we can conclude that there was a dichotomy in Jinnah's approach. He left the Indian National Congress for becoming hindu Hindu-dominant and joined a party whose name was All India "Muslim" League.
Jinnah wanted protection for all who identified themselves as Muslims. He was a non practicing Muslim from the Shia Ismaili community. He wanted a secular Pakistan where faith was left to the individuals. The Mullahs with the help of the feudal and military brass have turned Pakistan into a Sunni, with heavy influence of Wahabi strain, an Islamo fascist state. Pakistan has turned into a country where Shias and other Muslim faith minorities have been tormented and rived out of Pakistan. Today Pakistan is more like Afghanistan than India.
@@Mooneypilot101 "For all who identified themselves as Muslims". Then why were a major chunk of such people left in India even at the time of partition. What about them?
@@syedatif8806 The partition was not perfect. Many Hindus and Sikhs were left in Pakistan as well. Many Muslims for financial and family reasons could or did not migrate. Pakistan and Muslims have made a mess of the country to the point that many Muslims in India prefer to stay in India and are grateful to their parents and grandparents for not migrating to Pakistan. Pakistan is not failing because it is a Muslim majority country. It is failing because it is turning into an Islamo-fascist country where the the mullahs and their mobs rule with violence.
@@syedatif8806Why those "major chunck" of Muslims voted for AIML in 1946 elections once the idea of Pakistan was already on the board and major point of manifesto of AIML?
@@syedatif8806 The demand of a separate state was for areas where Muslims were majority. And that demand was only made in 1940s after seeing true face of Congress when it held ministries in several provinces between 1937-1939.
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allow Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan. Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it. Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha. Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar. He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
I sincerely hope Pakistanis, esp. youth take full advantage of learned people who are making knowledge accessible free of cost. So grateful for the learning opportunity!
Great video. A lot of Indians have been molding history to their liking in their education system. Indian education system incorrectly claims that Congress was a secular party while Jinnah was not. This level of inaccuracy is predominant in India.
Buddy do you guys even know what secularism is? Secularism is not lack of religion.. it's a simple principle that state will not interfere with religious practices vice-versa religion should not interfere in states affairs like education, military, judiciary, laws, etc etc.. In that area Indian constitution and IPC, CrPC and the Evidence Act.. are secular it doesn't include religion as a criteria for laws and opportunities. Every individual is same under law.. And on the civilian Liberty side the state don't interfere with religious practices like Muslim laws board Christian law Parsi laws and Hindu code Bill..
Now I don't know if you can say it was Congress.. no Congress is a party not the country.. Indian constitution is secular not it's political party.. simple..
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allowed Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan. Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it. Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha. Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar. He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
I am a student from National defense university and i really want to meet you sir. Lots of love and prayers. The way you elaboarates complex concept in an easy manner is exceptional. We need more professors like you💕💕
The problem is that even Jinnah and Ambedkar won't sit together. Dalit and Muslim. Would they? Do they? Today? In India? With great effort. Separation is nature's rule. Universe is NOT one single mass. It has numerous parts! Infinite! Diverse! We humans love diversity more than unity. It's natural. Posterity would see many many more "divisions"! "Aage aage dekhiye hota hai kya?" Any idea?
Sir I am From Chandigarh i totally agree with you point that Pakistan was not created in the name of Islam, but in the name of the future of Muslims. Jinnah was a secularist until his death, even he was more secular than Nehru and Gandhi, so he advocated Hindu-Muslim unity in the beginning of his political career. Although in the beginning, Congress was a secular national party until Gandhi took charge, it had become a party of Brahmins and Baniyas(hindu capitalist s). Gandhi was as great a benefactor of the upper caste Hindus as Jinnah was of the Muslims, but he wore the mask of secularism. Gandhi called the caste system the survival of India. In 1932, when Dalits were given the right to elect separate representatives in the communal award, Gandhi went on hunger strike till death. These are signs that no intelligent person can ignore. Jinnah wanted the Muslims of India to be safe And as equal citizen as majority Hindu in United India, the main evidence of which was his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission's proposals, although Abul Kalam Azad was also an ardent supporter of the Cabinet Mission. But the Brahmins and Baniyas refused to accept the Muslims as equal citizens and Nehru expressed this by indicating a change in the Cabinet Mission Plan later.
Now we need a part 2 to this video that tests how true Jinnah's claims were or was he just a rabble rouser like Imran Khan calling reductionist insults at opposition?
Jinnah ate pork, drank wine, smoked cigarettes ; Nehru ate beef, drank wine and smoked cigarettes. Both leaders bequeathed nations which are highly religious. This is ironic
Nehru was not at all religious.....but I haven't heard of anything like he used to eat beef ...I never heard of that ...even if he eats beef I don't mind.....
You're an exceptional academic, and I am pretty sure you know about Gokhlay as well, but you didn't mention him. The ideology of compliance with the British Raj was not a result of Gandhi or freedom hatred but because of the fear that we Muslims would've dug a deeper hole for ourselves. Gokhlay and Jinnah wanted our communities to comply, uplift ourselves, and then resist. Civil Disobediance would've opened doors for anarchy and muslims being lowest class citizens would've faced the brunt of it. We would've been cannon foder for the politics of Congress just like today in India. The thing that moved jinnah away from Congress was not the rise of Gandhi but the shift of Congress from the policies of Gokhlay, his deaths in 1915 and the death of the politics of Dadabhou Nauruji and Ghoklay by mid-20s. You didn't care to mention that? You mentioned Jinnah as a party pooper. You and I both know that it was, in fact, the labor party and world war 2 that gave us our freedom, not "our struggles and wars of Independence etc". The question was, what future we would've had in once Britishers decided to leave. In 20s and 30s, the rise of Hindu Mahasba, RSS, and the tilting of Congress towards Hindu Nationalism would've made any loyal Muslim leader to do what Jinnah did, taking a shot at a better future for his people.
we all are seeing the better future pakistani muslims have got, but on the other hand in india, its gujrati muslims who are prosperous and where RSS-BJP has ruled the highest, not in WB or any congress or CPI ruled state. One major riot happened when they assumed power, but after that number of riots have been far less than that during congress times. and rise of hindi mahasabha and RSS were effects of muslim league and khilafat movement and riots like mopla and so on, your chronology is wrong
Iqbal was also a NAYA NAYA MUSALMAAN JAYDA ALLAH ALLAH BOLE . Alama Iqbal father was a Kashmiri Hindu Pandit (Brahmin ) his surname was SAPRU . Iqbal maternal grandmother NANEE was a Sikh he used meet her after midnight to fool his Muslim supporters followers .
Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic". Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that: "Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
@@maquacr7014 It is not disputed but occupied one ! INDIA can't claim it Because they break the sign of accession by removing article 370 Moreover Gilgit baltistan was never part of jk occupied for only 100 years same as Pakistan today Gilgit baltistan got freedom and made a state by suddenly Pakistan took over
@@maquacr7014 it's not part of ladakh . we have nothing to do with india and pakistan .. it is like your first cousin and second cousin fighting to claim your home while you are ALIVE
Yeah, according to one of his quote taught in social studies, he saw Pakistan as an experimental place where an appropriate system will be devised. He implied that through experience, trail n errors, ultimately a right political n economic system can be devised. His vision cannot be taken as everlasting ideology n ultimate unshakable principles coz He himself left stuff open ended type. (According to my limited knowledge abt him 🙂)
@@H.A-Phoenix1We just have to accept that Pakistan was a state artificially created by the British to keep off the Communist Soviet regime from entering into the subcontinent and to win the proxy war. It used the religious sentiments of the people to get what they wanted.
Jinnah had been part of congress and had rightly understood the mindset of the congress leadership. It was a blessing to have a visionary leadership like him. Well done Taimur sb to highlight this issue.
So Jinnah just flipped or created this narrative. Although him and Muslim league were close to the British and probably agents of British and off course non secular. The thing is that congress proved to be secular even after partition. Remember Gandhi was murdered because of his pro-Muslim stance. One can write whatever in the exam but the facts don't change. Jinnah is a v.dubious character; his words and actions do not match. It would have been nice if you gave your point of view regarding this instead of just quoting Jinnah. Please don't create confusions. Jinnah was lying to everyone, left, right and center.
Sir, whenever I watch your videos, I can't help but think about the difference in viewership between your content and that fazool family vlogger. It’s disheartening to see how misplaced our priorities can be as a society. Please continue creating videos like these we truly appreciate the🫡🫡🫡🫡
If gandhi had a quasi religious appeal then muslim league had a completely religious outlook. Tbh J left Congress because after gandhi had joined Congress it became clear to J that he won't be their main leader. So he left and joined a party where he was the only real leader and all others were just sucking upto him. Also, history did proved that J was wrong about Congress that it was not a true secular party.
The Constituent Assembly of India first met on December 9, 1946 regarding The Constitution of India, Gandhi was alive then . The Fundamental rights of Indian Constitution - the basic structure doctrine ( No one can amend) Article 15 : The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Equal respect and recognition: The state equally respects and recognizes all religions. State neutrality: The state does not promote any particular religion or religious practices. Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of religion, which includes freedom of conscience and the ability to practice, profess, and propagate any religion. I think Pakistan is Islamic Republic. It explains all
You are a professor, I admire you Sir , I searched in Google , it gives :Article 2 of the constitution states that the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making. However, the constitution also states that "subject to law, public order, and morality, every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice, and propagate his religion". @@Taimur_Laal
@DebadritoDutta the question is was Congress secular BEFORE India was divided. Means to the end are under discussion. I think in written constitutions , states give protection to all its citizen. What happens on ground is a different story.
Hello sir, I love watching your lectures which are full of insights. I would request you if you can also make a detailed video on Poona Pact 1931 and demand for separate electorate by both Jinnah and later Ambedkar. Also if you can share your opinion on the anecdote “Doctor and the Saint” written by Arundhati Roy. - With love and respect from India
ICP(Indian Congress Party) was a secular party that leaned heavily in favor of Hindus. PML (Pakistan Muslim League) was also a secular party with a majority Muslim in the regions with predominant Muslim population. Creation of Pakistan was legitimate. Pakistan was not created for Islam. It was for Muslims from different faiths (Shia. Sunni, Ahmadi etc) to live in peace and harmony along with other ethnicities and faiths.
The partition as violent as it was saved many more lives. Even though many innocent Hindus and Muslims lost their lives, not partitioning India would have had far more disastrous results largely for Muslims but to a degree for Hindus as well. India staying together would have had a much more violent future. There we Hindu extremists who were hell bent on not just dominating India but eliminating the Muslims from what they considered their land. On the other hand there were Muslims who wanted to bring back the glory days of Muslims, a nostalgic rule of the Mughal period where Muslims as a minority held higher status. These two ideologies would have eventually clashed creating an unimaginable bloodbath. Division of India created a buffer between these two extreme groups and forced India to stay as secular as they could. Creation of Pakistan forced India to stay secular. As Pakistan descended into religious extremism it created a contrast between secular India and religious strife ridden Pakistan
The best solution for sub continent was to create 15 independent nation states (5 Muslim majority and 10 hindu majority) based on ethnicities with an EU style indian union with freedom of movement of people, goods and services. Dividing the region on the base of religion created more problems than solving anything.
@@braveheart8318 religion is a very weak cohesive force to connect a country.. with islam you guys cannot decide which islam is the true Islam.. and keep fighting.. Similarly with Hinduism you cannot decide which religion should be considered Hindu.. because as per definition Sikh Jain buddist all are considered Hindu.. even lingayat and Arya demand they should be considered as a separate religious identity.. Hence common history, culture and language has always been a better glue.. Hence India has been divided into state based on history and language.. And each has its own federal government and laws
@@farhanpathan2976 Yes india wasn't a single nation do you expect a region bigger than European Union Country 4,9mn square kilometre British india Eu 4.2 million sq km And more diversity than entire continental Africa to be homogenous. No right india was a sub continent and still is a federation of state.. It had its own special culture and philosophy
British colonialism wanted it Interestingly US wanted an undivided India but British prevailed (Reference correspondence of British & US ) quoted by Prof.Ishtiyaq Ahmed
Gandhi wanted to support khilafat movt that's why jinnah became angry and called it a psiedo nationalist approach. It had nothing to do with hindu references as mahatma . 2) after 1937 election debacle jinnah changed strategy and and started harping on religion.it was the first time when he started calling INC a hindu organisation. 3)hindus were fascists still he wanted to live in Bombay after Partition! 4) ishtiaq ahmed on jinnah book clearly divided his life into 3 phases and 3rd phase was entirely communal especially after 1937 . 4) he was only focussed on grabing power and creating pakistan thats why he used to give diff versions of pak to diff stakeholders. In english he wsed to showoff his legal talent and in regional languages just focus on garnering support to create pak. Jinnah in 2 phases is diff to reconcile
Ustad g this is very interesting and makes sense. Could you please read Ishtiaq Ahmed's book Jinnah and review it please. I have yet to see an academic seriously discussing with Ishtiaq Ahmed's idea where he solely blames for India's partition. Please take a look.
In 1946, at Islamia College Quaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah: “We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.”
@@osamaali5969 and according to Jinnah Islamic principles were identical with the slogan of the French Revolution: Liberty Equality and Fraternity. How do you a square that circle?
@@Taimur_Laal that's stupidity at its best.. a religious theocracy that ask of second class citizenship under shariya for non Muslim is liberty equality and fraternity 😂😂😂
You mean to say .... Jinha become permenant member of muslim fundamentalist party ( Muslim of League) because of Hindu fundamentalism in Congress...? I am still confused what was Jinnah when in Congress and after congress.... Fundamentalist or Secular...?
Jinnah Sahib once wrote to a friend, to do politics in India one has to be either Hindu or Muslim and I have chosen to be a Muslim. Gandhi Gee was a religious personality as well and as such did not see religion separate from politics. Nehru Gee on the other hand was a secular person. Rather he was inclined towards socialism.
1:54 Buddy do you guys even know what secularism is? Secularism is not lack of religion.. it's a simple principle that state will not interfere with religious practices vice-versa religion should not interfere in states affairs like education, military, judiciary, laws, etc etc.. In that area Indian constitution and IPC, CrPC and the Evidence Act.. are secular it doesn't include religion as a criteria for laws and opportunities. Every individual is same under law.. And on the civilian Liberty side the state don't interfere with religious practices like Muslim laws board Christian law Parsi laws and Hindu code Bill..
He left Congress because it wasn’t secular enough while he himself was involved in Muslim League even before leaving the Congress, and he then led a completely religious party. He confuses me so much. Imran Khan is his true successor. Confused and messed up
Sir wo jo ess se pehly wali video thi wo b dubara public kary aur sir jo ap ne video ko private kiya tha os k baad comment kyon remove ho gaye video ko dubara public hony per, comments to rehny chaiye thy
You have rightly explained the reason of the creation of Pakistan. The time has proved it right. Jinnah in the beginning wanted constitutional rights and proportional representation within the Indian federation. However gradually he head left with no option but to demand and accept the division of India. Congress leadership more than Jinnah are responsible for the creation of Pakistan.
If Pakistan was to be a secular state according to Jinnah. Then show me one instance where he used the word secularism for Pakistan? What do you think the term secularism was coined after 1948 so Jinnah did not knew the term thus did not use it? To the contrary, he used the word Islam, Islamic etc. for Pakistan numerous times.
@@Taimur_Laal Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic". Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels.
السلام علیکم و رحمتہ اللّہ @taimur_laal واجب الاحترام ہمیں صرف اتنا بتا دیں کہ اتنی بڑی ہجرت اور اتنی زیادہ قربانیاں کیا ہمارے بڑوں نے اس لیے دیں تھیں کہ ہم ایک سیکولر ریاست بن سکیں اور مشہور نعرہ جو اب بھی لوگوں کی یاداشت میں موجود پاکستان کا مطلب کیا لاالہ الااللہ وہ بھی غالباً سیکولر پاکستان کے لیے تھا۔ ہسٹری اور فلسفے کے استاد کی حیثیت سے یہ کتنی بڑی بد دیانتی ہے کہ آ پ صرف ایک محسوس موقف کی ترجمانی کر رہے ہیں اور باقی ساری تاریخ کو نظر انداز
So after capitalism what is left for us in democracy? This guy is so powerful he can make jinnah look communalism supporter😭,btw his claim about jinnah on Congress was correct!
Creation of Pakistan and Secularism are two different subject matters. India is a secular country, however it is a Hindu majority country. The creation of Pakistan was to give a very large number of Muslims freedom and independence from Hindu majority. Even though European countries are secular, they are independent countries based on cultural and religious(Catholic and Protestant) divisions.
Normally I enjoy your videos on Economics. But this is a rather strange video. One has to recognize that Gandhi's emergence as a major leader reduced Jinnah's cache in the Congress. Ignoring this is quite a lapse.
Jinnah was also a NAYA MUSALMAAN JAYDA ALLAH ALLAH BOLE . Mohd Ali Jinnah father was a Kathiawadi Gujrati Hindu from Lohana community his name was Jinnah Bhai Thakkar converted to Islam and became Ismaili Shia Jinnah Bhai Ponja because he had started 🐟 Fishery business which was objected by his Kathiawadi Hindu Lohana community . Mohd Ali Jinnah grandfather name was Ponja Bhai Thakkar .
Dr. Taimur, what was the vision of Quaid e Azam? What type of system he thought to be feasible n beneficial, for Pakistan? Hybrid Liberal socialism type with combo of liberalism, socialism, and also democratic communism. Or He held strong inclination toward a single ideology?
When Jinah sb said that we hv to fight for both Britian & Hindu Congress Imperlists, he clearly meant that only British were not Fascist but Indian Congress were also the same, as the latter was predominantly Brahmanist in approach with members having dual membership in Jangsangh / Hindu Mahasaba also [completely Castists who wanted to subdue the majoritarian lower castes (Lower casts, who to the dictionary of Brahmans are not basically hindus)] His description was correct and has been proved so in the last 70 years. So whether you endorse it or not, facts remains so..
Who is feeding these stupidity.....Congress is so secular that Gandhiji has to lose his life by the hand of Hindu centred person Nathuram godse who thought Gandhiji was responsible for the creation of Pakistan by cutting India into three parts and partition atrocities....don't even know your own basic things about these things,but Gyan pelna zaroori hai....
Hello professor , I am not a fan of Gandhi but there are few doubt abt it A. The Congress is hindu party argument goes back to even to the times of Syed ahmed khan where he accused Congress on same line of reasoning 2. Gandhian use of religious symbolims was criticised not just by Jinnah but many other leaders from Annie besant to ambedkar, Gandhian way involved has a whole set of things he succefully deployed in South Africa u unite the indian population which a mix of diff religion n ethnicity so on his party perhaps he could not saw the long term consequences but still his use of religious symbols was not limited to Hinduism but it involved the islamic symbolism becoz in his mind he was bringing together two groups for a common cause to fight British , it certainly not abt hindu chavnism otherwise there would not have been accusations on him to for muslim appeasement ever since the non cooperation movement. 3. Yes Jinnah was certainly a constitutionalist during this period who opposed the Gandhian method but he was not alone it still does not explain the turned he took to play an absolute communal card to get his ways specially since he return from England during mid 1930s Thank you for all the informative lectures you provide sir
@@Taimur_Laal Gandhi used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar. He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses
لاکھوں شہدا نے قربانی اس لئیے دی تھی کہ ایک ایسی ریاست قائم ہو گی جہاں ﷲ کا دین نافظ ہو گا، اپنا سیکولرزم اپنے پاس رکھئیے، پاکستان کا ایک ہی مطلب ہے لا الہ الاﷲ
who got martyred for Pakistan? Those people who were living happily in their home. Because of your stupid religion. They have to die and leave their house and everything. Nobody sacrificed anything. People lost everything. Get outta bubble that Pakistan education teach you. Only landlords won and start running it because they knew they can't do it in India. Plus, Nehru let you guys have Pakistan. Hindus were in majority. You think we would have let you break our nation.
Thank you so much sir, in easy words with references you made all the points so clear that what was the objective of Mr Jinnah to form Pakistan now it is easy to understand why he wanted to have a secular Pakistan. Basically he wanted to form Pakistan not only for Muslims but for other communities as well in which all religious communities live peacefully without discrimination. His vision was clear but in Pakistan studies fictional stories are given.
i love your work and thank you for this video. but as an aside, why is this even the question both muslim and seculars ask? 75 years on why do pakistanis keep revisiting or lamenting partition. 1900s were the time of nation states everywhere in the world including europe and africa. india pakistan bangladesh arent special in that way. Pakistan India and Bangladesh had never been a single country for milleniums prior to 1947, (yes despite having kingdoms spanning areas in both or all countries during time period after 1200). People of west Pakistan are simply the people of Indus valley, for 5000+ years. religion aside. after throwing over a colonial power why should they have stayed with India to begin with?
Excellent clip that brings home the hidden in plain sight truth ! Jinnah sahib only reluctantly went for a separate Islamic/Muslim state ONLY when he failed to bring fellow Hindu leaders to a socially-responsible sense. For those Anglophile Hindus it was and is more important to uphold democratic principles than to create are truely peaceful post-British independent Indian multi-ethnic society/state ! 😅 ❤ ❤ ❤
ICP(Indian Congress Party) was a secular party that leaned heavily in favor of Hindus. PML (Pakistan Muslim League) was also a secular party with a majority Muslim in the regions with predominant Muslim population. Creation of Pakistan was legitimate. Pakistan was not created for Islam. It was for Muslims from different faiths (Shia. Sunni, Ahmadi etc) to live in peace and harmony along with other ethnicities and faiths.
If there is one this congress is it is secular...it's been since Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi was killed because he tried to stop riots. Nehru is abused daily by BJP cuz he made India secular country. The Indian constitution which is out holy book is secular to its core And if you are quoting a former PM of yours the let me quote ours, Nehru said that Jinnah was a communal man who wanted to divide this country because he could win elections
Jinnah wanted power and power alone. And he was british fanboy inside and outside. Once gandhi came , he realised his quest of real power is not possible . He was never jailed because he never fought against british. British knew he loved britain so why would he would be jailed by them. Btw in 1885 to 1920 , congress was only asking for autonomy or devolution of power in par with white canada australia and new zealand . They were not asking for independence. Gandhi came and changed narrative towards mass protest which quickly turned to demand for independence. This was because british renege on promises which they made for autonomy during ww1. SO BRITISH fanboy jinnah left congress. He was not aligned to vision of independent india.
Rubbish !! Jinnah was greedy for power and wanted to be the PM Not one day in jail Not one book written Not one speech of importance Just a stooge of the British Partition was a blessing for India : earned on the blood of more than a million innocent civilians. Sad but true
Typical layman's rant " Jinnah never went to jail"......thts because Jinnah's character was extension of his Law Practice. He was the top notch lawyer of his time and hence believed in constitutional struggle remaining within ambit of law. Same was reflected in his political struggle...he never believed in street politics or policy of agitation and hence never went to jail.."Jinnah was greedy for power and wanted to be PM"?? Really, what an absurd argument keeping the fact in mind that he was already counting his days as he was suffering from Tuberculosis. Moreover, he rejected offers made by Subhash Chamdrabose and C. Rajagopalachari for seat of PM in independent India which he refused..
@@Rathore12438Jinnah was not a far sighted person ,he was not happy with freedom struggle as he felt that Congress after independence would make India into a Country where Hindus will dominate ,that is why for 15 years left India and stayed in Britain and when there was a plan that Muslim will great two seperate Country Carved out of India that is Pakistan and Bangladesh that he again entered freedom struggle with great fervour .if Jinnah was intelligent person ,he would press for Secular Constitution for Pakistan.for Punjab undivided would have it borders upto Gurgaon 25 km from Delhi .in that way he could have Controlled the reins of Nehru as Prime minister of India .Jinnah neve had any faith on his Muslim Community as he Knew ,they Want Only whole of Kashmir Srinagar Valley .Nehru being a lawyer was first put to jail ,for Charge of stealing a bicycle .British can put anyone to jail under Flimsy ground and suffer for rest of life in jail
@@sanjeevverma4533 You are absolutely wrong. Idea of Pakistan was floated in 1940 while Jinnah came back in 1934. He was far sighted as it's evident from the events that are unfolding in today's India since BJP came to power. Jinnah expired a year after partition thats why he wasn't able to formulate a constitution...it's not an easy task to make constitution in a year time...Even Indian constitution was implemented in January 1950 ( third year of independence)....Nehru was lawyer only by his degree and not as a profession..Britannica "On his return to India, Nehru at first had tried to settle down as a lawyer. Unlike his father, however, he had only a desultory interest in his profession and did not relish either the practice of law or the company of lawyers"...hence, in no way can he be compared with Jinnah as a lawyer.
And I believee that was why (congress was secular) Jinnah did not join ML in 1906. And some people use this argument against Jinnah. Correct me if I am wrong.
BJP have never stated that they want to make India a Hindu Rashtra. India will always be a secular country because Hindus are secular and our constitution reflects the same.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who is himself an Islamic fundamentalist, will definitely blame others. And the people living in his creation will also lie in the same way.
Indeed,this was the core reason why pakistan came into being,nd jinnah nd his other fellows fought for their independence against british imperialists nd a hindu congress.
People commenting here don’t got the point , Jinnah was for Hindu Muslim unity up till Congress was secular but when it became evident that Hindu leaders would dominate congress policies and not adhere to minority demands that would ensure rights to them then he sought for a independent Muslim states it was his Plan B or sort.
these are excuses, he would have known he is lying from his heart, if congress was hindu, they would not have supported khalifat movement in india, when he found muslims had strong demography in both west and east which won elections for muslim league, he knew it was time to utilize it to realize the wahhabi dream of his forefathers from AMU to syed ahmed barelvi to dehlvi, they kept plotting for a muslim state throughout and they got it, and we all have seen what they did to minorities after that...
Professor Chicha.,....if we can elect a government democratically, why not use the same yardstick to appoint Judges, Professors, Teachers, Doctors, Army & Police Officials....etc..... CHICHA PLEASE ANSWER 😂😂😂😂😂
Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic". Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that: "Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
Jinnah's statements may have been correct in a few cases in politics but in historical reality it gave a completely wrong message. Therefore students of Pakistan are deprived of knowing proper history. The complete secularism of the Congress may have failed in practice at various points, but the Congress had no fewer Muslim leaders and supporters than the Muslim League. Today there is no Jinnah, no glory of the Muslim League. But still Gandhi's ideals and methods are being discussed in the world, research is being done and the political activities of the Congress have not stopped.
The issue does not lie with secularism but what could majority do. Jinnah believed that Britishers with all their flaws did not unnecessarily interefered in religious issues and allowed muslims to follow to live and operate under their religion. He wanted muslims to be given sort of veto rights when a legislation affects them. Nehru and a lot of Congress fellows were against this and wanted Jinnah to get this settled after independence but he being a shrewd lawyer knew that after independence he along with muslims will be at the mercy of majority. This is exactly what happened when BJP came into power proving Jinnah was right in his assumption.
The real reason why Muslim are really unhappy is BJP govt is treating them as Muslims have been treating their minorities for decades and centuries... BJP isn't actively discriminating against Muslim.. But Indian Muslim have been the centre point of most of Indian policy since independence.. congress in it attempt to defend its vision of post independence India.. tried very hard to keep Muslim happy.. so all our foreign policy and internal policies were in consideration of keeping them happy.. Muslim took this to be norm . Christian Jain Sikh or Parsi were never a good political vote bank.. due to our size.. im a Christian.. all the opportunity that are created are created equally and we all have equal rights to pursue the road to prosperity.. But importance of Indian constitution is, that never cared about your religion while creating opportunities.. hence we all succeed in education and wealth.. Muslim took undue advantage of the population boom.. and increased population size. Now post 2014 Modi did nothing but made them irrelevant to central government policy position.. ie they don't have any special vetto as you said.. So what policy applies to all will apply to them.. This irrelevance is what Muslim call discrimination.. Now tell me what will you call all the Muslim countries.. None of them ever had any special vetto for their own affairs.. And remember Muslim are not the minorities they are second largest majority of India.. India has i think 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population in the world
@@Taimur_Laal Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic". Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that: "Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
In Game theory sometimes one finds himself at the second end where his actions are solely dependant on the first persons actions. Ab q k congress was no more a secular party Muslims had no option other than thinking through a binary created by Congress
Perhaps Jinnah had the foresight to see the eventuality of Hindutva in India. With this premise, Pakistan can be rightly justified if it adopts secularism as its polity. However, the equal rights given to all religions in secularism represents the extremes of religious conflicts in a nation. By implication, equal rights to all ethnicities, even if belonging to the same religion, is a logical implication of secularism. Or is there some other terminology for such a system whereby there are equal rights to all ethnicities? Please enlighten.
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allow Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan. Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it. Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha. Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar. He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
If Pakistan became an Islamic country then India has the equal right to become a Hindu country. No if but, SECULAR word was NOT the part of original Indian constitution, it was pushen in by Indira Gandhi during Emergency without discussing in parliament when all the opposition was behind bars. SECULAR word has done more harm to the state of India than anything. Moreover, it was inducted into PREAMBLE to which supreme court says nobody can touch the Preamble of constitution and is the soul of it.
If Jinnah was unhappy with congress as it was not secular according to Jinnah, then why would he joined AIML which was based on non secular ideology? He should have created a new party which would have been more secular than Congress. Instead he joined, AIML which was not secular at all.
You have no understanding of Jinnah....He joined AIML in 1913 while remaining a prominent congress leader because he wanted to bring Muslims and Hindus together in one fold ...thts why he was titled as Biggest AMBASSADOR OF HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY. And AIML's manifesto didn't include marginalization of any community or preferential treatment of Muslims but rather it advocated equal treatment of Muslims without any prejudice.
@@Rathore12438AIML wanted the Muslims of Bharat to have a political representation and political power that was MUCH GREATER then their share of the population (24%).
@@1525boy Even if 24% of population demanded 33.3% of representation, Nehru and Gandhi were not willing to give even that.
Brilliant explanation by comrade Taimur.
Yes, only Jinnah was fighting for India’s Independence. That’s why the British Viceroys decided to put Congress leaders in jails so that they could secretly enjoy the luxuries offered by the British Raj in Indian jails while Jinnah was the only leader allowed by the British government to roam around and fight for India’s Independence. 😂😂😂
@@ArvindSaharan to be clear. That was Jinnah’s view. Not mine. My view is aligned with CPI in that period.
@@Taimur_Laal Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic".
Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that:
"Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
@@Taimur_Laal bevaqoof ne poori video banayi aur keh raha hai ye mera view nahin hai... what a fool! thats why none of your videos make any sense...
Thts because Jinnah had been a practicing lawyer all his life and was considered the best amongst the lot. Because of this connection Jinnah believed in constitutional measures and fighting for independence while remaining within the ambit of law. He was not inclined towards street politics and agitation.
اروند صاحب کچھ پاکستانی بہوت زیادہ منافق ہوتے ہیں ۔
Instead of the Muslim League, why not form a new party called the All India Nationalist Party? If he was a secular and Indian nationalist,?
Point ☝️
Because he did not create the party. Please read history.
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allowed Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan.
Coming to the rant of Hindutva in the comment section in attempt to justify Jinnah's vision, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. Hindutva is not action. Jihad is action. Islamic Invasion and destruction of temples were action. Hindutva is just a reaction. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it.
Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha.
Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar.
He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
@@Elitistlahori Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allowed Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan.
Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it.
Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha.
Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar.
He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
Another big question is that, why did Jinnah join the Muslim league many years prior to Gandhi becoming the leader of the congress party. So according to Dr Taimur, when he joined the Muslim league, the congress was still secular. Meaning he had clear proclivities towards Islam and did not believe in secularism. Its either this or that Jinnah saw the tell tail signs of the hinduisation of the congress even before Gandhi coming into power and decided that it was time to join an interest group that would look after the well being of his own people. Muslims always side with secular progressive parties like Jinnah did wherever in the world we are in a minority like in India, US and Britain. Its a way of coping and survival. Jinnah showed what he was truly about when he joined the Muslim league and advocated for a separate country for Muslims.
If jinnah had realized that congress isn't secular party and that he was secular himself.
Why was he himself was a leader of AIML before resigning from Congress?
Didn't he know that muslim league as well wasn't a secular party?
Why didn't he make his own party if he was a secular?
May be it was too late then.
He was a leader of AIML after resigning from congress not before
If modi is the butcher of Gujarat for 2002 ..
How is Jinnah not butcher of Bengal and Rawalpindi for Direct action day
@@rohand04 You people exaggerate what happened on direct action day.
It's ironic that Gandhi Ji was assassinated over allegations of appeasing Muslims, while Jinnah Ji accused him of transforming the Congress into a Hindu organization. Additionally, it's worth considering that if the Congress had truly been a Hindu organization, there wouldn't be so many Muslims in India today.
There are multiple way to battle ,hard power projections is not worth considering every time .There is the systematic degradation of minorities either in the form of first past the poll election system or alienation at the societal level .Moreover according to some reports the condition of muslims are worst than Dalits in India.
It's not true that Dalits are far better than Muslim community. Though both suffer too much along with other castes.
Jinnah’s criticism was about how Congress, under the guise of secularism, began leaning towards Hindu majority interests. The fact that there are still many Muslims in India doesn’t address Jinnah’s core concern about their political marginalization and the dominance of Hindu influence in what was supposed to be a secular and inclusive party. Gandhi’s assassination doesn’t negate the criticism levied by Jinnah; if anything, it speaks to just how fascist some parts of the Hindu population had become-something that was purposely exacerbated by the British after the 1857 mutiny.
@@aryeshsaini265 please go through Sachar committee report
@@rahilshah68 there is a reason behind it.. Indian muslim never gave education importance.. they believe that they need to increase the number rather than educate themselves.
Hence even in 2011 Indian muslim had 68% education compared to 73% for Hindu , 81% for buddist, 84.5% for Christian and 94% for jains.
While Christans Sikh Jain buddist and Hindus became open to education, Muslims was suspicious. This was the group mentality.
Many Muslims still believe that western education is haram . It will take Muslim kids especially girls away from deen ( belief )..
Hence girl participation rate for girls in Muslim population is only 62%
So we can conclude that there was a dichotomy in Jinnah's approach. He left the Indian National Congress for becoming hindu Hindu-dominant and joined a party whose name was All India "Muslim" League.
Jinnah wanted protection for all who identified themselves as Muslims. He was a non practicing Muslim from the Shia Ismaili community. He wanted a secular Pakistan where faith was left to the individuals. The Mullahs with the help of the feudal and military brass have turned Pakistan into a Sunni, with heavy influence of Wahabi strain, an Islamo fascist state. Pakistan has turned into a country where Shias and other Muslim faith minorities have been tormented and rived out of Pakistan. Today Pakistan is more like Afghanistan than India.
@@Mooneypilot101 "For all who identified themselves as Muslims". Then why were a major chunk of such people left in India even at the time of partition. What about them?
@@syedatif8806 The partition was not perfect. Many Hindus and Sikhs were left in Pakistan as well. Many Muslims for financial and family reasons could or did not migrate. Pakistan and Muslims have made a mess of the country to the point that many Muslims in India prefer to stay in India and are grateful to their parents and grandparents for not migrating to Pakistan. Pakistan is not failing because it is a Muslim majority country. It is failing because it is turning into an Islamo-fascist country where the the mullahs and their mobs rule with violence.
@@syedatif8806Why those "major chunck" of Muslims voted for AIML in 1946 elections once the idea of Pakistan was already on the board and major point of manifesto of AIML?
@@syedatif8806 The demand of a separate state was for areas where Muslims were majority. And that demand was only made in 1940s after seeing true face of Congress when it held ministries in several provinces between 1937-1939.
i was awaiting for this video for 5 hrs . Love you content and hard work for us
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allow Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan.
Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it.
Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha.
Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar.
He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
I sincerely hope Pakistanis, esp. youth take full advantage of learned people who are making knowledge accessible free of cost. So grateful for the learning opportunity!
I have sympathy with him, his ambulance ran out of fuel before reaching hospital. Once a lawyer, always a liar.
Great video. A lot of Indians have been molding history to their liking in their education system. Indian education system incorrectly claims that Congress was a secular party while Jinnah was not. This level of inaccuracy is predominant in India.
Buddy do you guys even know what secularism is?
Secularism is not lack of religion.. it's a simple principle that state will not interfere with religious practices vice-versa religion should not interfere in states affairs like education, military, judiciary, laws, etc etc..
In that area Indian constitution and IPC, CrPC and the Evidence Act.. are secular it doesn't include religion as a criteria for laws and opportunities. Every individual is same under law..
And on the civilian Liberty side the state don't interfere with religious practices like Muslim laws board Christian law Parsi laws and Hindu code Bill..
Now I don't know if you can say it was Congress.. no Congress is a party not the country.. Indian constitution is secular not it's political party.. simple..
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allowed Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan.
Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it.
Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha.
Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar.
He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
@@rohand04 Secularism can exclude religion in entirety. Ever heard if French's laicsim or Ataturk's secular model in Turkiye?
Dr. Taimur at his analytical best! In full form!
I am a student from National defense university and i really want to meet you sir. Lots of love and prayers.
The way you elaboarates complex concept in an easy manner is exceptional. We need more professors like you💕💕
The problem is that even Jinnah and Ambedkar won't sit together. Dalit and Muslim. Would they? Do they? Today? In India? With great effort. Separation is nature's rule. Universe is NOT one single mass. It has numerous parts! Infinite! Diverse! We humans love diversity more than unity. It's natural. Posterity would see many many more "divisions"! "Aage aage dekhiye hota hai kya?" Any idea?
Ironically, to prevent being subjecated under possible Hindu majoritarianism, the Indian Muslim homeland became an Islamic Fascist state.
Dont disagree with you there. All this will have to be unwound to make Pakistan secular.
Sir I am From Chandigarh i totally agree with you point that Pakistan was not created in the name of Islam, but in the name of the future of Muslims. Jinnah was a secularist until his death, even he was more secular than Nehru and Gandhi, so he advocated Hindu-Muslim unity in the beginning of his political career. Although in the beginning, Congress was a secular national party until Gandhi took charge, it had become a party of Brahmins and Baniyas(hindu capitalist s). Gandhi was as great a benefactor of the upper caste Hindus as Jinnah was of the Muslims, but he wore the mask of secularism. Gandhi called the caste system the survival of India. In 1932, when Dalits were given the right to elect separate representatives in the communal award, Gandhi went on hunger strike till death. These are signs that no intelligent person can ignore. Jinnah wanted the Muslims of India to be safe And as equal citizen as majority Hindu in United India, the main evidence of which was his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission's proposals, although Abul Kalam Azad was also an ardent supporter of the Cabinet Mission. But the Brahmins and Baniyas refused to accept the Muslims as equal citizens and Nehru expressed this by indicating a change in the Cabinet Mission Plan later.
I can understand Jinnah being more secular than Gandhi but Nehru?🤔🤔🤔
Now we need a part 2 to this video that tests how true Jinnah's claims were or was he just a rabble rouser like Imran Khan calling reductionist insults at opposition?
Totally agreed
Jinnah ate pork, drank wine, smoked cigarettes ; Nehru ate beef, drank wine and smoked cigarettes. Both leaders bequeathed nations which are highly religious. This is ironic
And he was a shia Muslim majority of Pakistan 87% are sunni muslims 😂😂
We don't know if Nehru ate beef. And he wasn't religious at all.
Nehru was not at all religious.....but I haven't heard of anything like he used to eat beef ...I never heard of that ...even if he eats beef I don't mind.....
Yogi Aditya Nath is Secular same as Gandhi.
But Nehru was Secular who didn't sent Muslims to Pakistan which was must.
You're an exceptional academic, and I am pretty sure you know about Gokhlay as well, but you didn't mention him. The ideology of compliance with the British Raj was not a result of Gandhi or freedom hatred but because of the fear that we Muslims would've dug a deeper hole for ourselves. Gokhlay and Jinnah wanted our communities to comply, uplift ourselves, and then resist. Civil Disobediance would've opened doors for anarchy and muslims being lowest class citizens would've faced the brunt of it. We would've been cannon foder for the politics of Congress just like today in India. The thing that moved jinnah away from Congress was not the rise of Gandhi but the shift of Congress from the policies of Gokhlay, his deaths in 1915 and the death of the politics of Dadabhou Nauruji and Ghoklay by mid-20s.
You didn't care to mention that?
You mentioned Jinnah as a party pooper.
You and I both know that it was, in fact, the labor party and world war 2 that gave us our freedom, not "our struggles and wars of Independence etc".
The question was, what future we would've had in once Britishers decided to leave.
In 20s and 30s, the rise of Hindu Mahasba, RSS, and the tilting of Congress towards Hindu Nationalism would've made any loyal Muslim leader to do what Jinnah did, taking a shot at a better future for his people.
we all are seeing the better future pakistani muslims have got, but on the other hand in india, its gujrati muslims who are prosperous and where RSS-BJP has ruled the highest, not in WB or any congress or CPI ruled state. One major riot happened when they assumed power, but after that number of riots have been far less than that during congress times.
and rise of hindi mahasabha and RSS were effects of muslim league and khilafat movement and riots like mopla and so on, your chronology is wrong
Iqbal was also a NAYA NAYA MUSALMAAN JAYDA ALLAH ALLAH BOLE . Alama Iqbal father was a Kashmiri Hindu Pandit (Brahmin ) his surname was SAPRU . Iqbal maternal grandmother NANEE was a Sikh he used meet her after midnight to fool his Muslim supporters followers .
Pls make more insightful videos like this. Thanks for this video, Dr. sb.
Next video should be, was All India Muslim League was secular with same style of references
Such a great educational video! Thank you so much Dr Saahb!
Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic".
Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that:
"Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
sir i have a question
if Gilgit baltistan is not recognize by pakistan constitution then how its part of pakistan?
It is disputed territory being administered by Pakistan.
@@maquacr7014
It is not disputed but occupied one !
INDIA can't claim it
Because they break the sign of accession by removing article 370
Moreover Gilgit baltistan was never part of jk occupied for only 100 years same as Pakistan today
Gilgit baltistan got freedom and made a state by suddenly Pakistan took over
@@Hunzapost It is part of Ladakh. Entire Kashmir and Ladakh region is disputed territory according to International consesus.
@@maquacr7014 it's not part of ladakh . we have nothing to do with india and pakistan .. it is like your first cousin and second cousin fighting to claim your home while you are ALIVE
@@Hunzapost I am afraid no one believes and will believe your narrative.
Jinnah was a politician too. He was doing what he ought to ! His approach should not be taken as the only fact.
Yeah, according to one of his quote taught in social studies, he saw Pakistan as an experimental place where an appropriate system will be devised.
He implied that through experience, trail n errors, ultimately a right political n economic system can be devised.
His vision cannot be taken as everlasting ideology n ultimate unshakable principles coz
He himself left stuff open ended type. (According to my limited knowledge abt him 🙂)
@@H.A-Phoenix1We just have to accept that Pakistan was a state artificially created by the British to keep off the Communist Soviet regime from entering into the subcontinent and to win the proxy war. It used the religious sentiments of the people to get what they wanted.
Thank u so much to educate us
Jinnah had been part of congress and had rightly understood the mindset of the congress leadership.
It was a blessing to have a visionary leadership like him. Well done Taimur sb to highlight this issue.
So Jinnah just flipped or created this narrative. Although him and Muslim league were close to the British and probably agents of British and off course non secular. The thing is that congress proved to be secular even after partition. Remember Gandhi was murdered because of his pro-Muslim stance. One can write whatever in the exam but the facts don't change. Jinnah is a v.dubious character; his words and actions do not match. It would have been nice if you gave your point of view regarding this instead of just quoting Jinnah. Please don't create confusions. Jinnah was lying to everyone, left, right and center.
Sir, whenever I watch your videos, I can't help but think about the difference in viewership between your content and that fazool family vlogger. It’s disheartening to see how misplaced our priorities can be as a society. Please continue creating videos like these we truly appreciate the🫡🫡🫡🫡
If gandhi had a quasi religious appeal then muslim league had a completely religious outlook. Tbh J left Congress because after gandhi had joined Congress it became clear to J that he won't be their main leader. So he left and joined a party where he was the only real leader and all others were just sucking upto him. Also, history did proved that J was wrong about Congress that it was not a true secular party.
Well explained.
Well done.
The Constituent Assembly of India first met on December 9, 1946 regarding The Constitution of India, Gandhi was alive then .
The Fundamental rights of Indian Constitution - the basic structure doctrine ( No one can amend)
Article 15 : The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Equal respect and recognition: The state equally respects and recognizes all religions.
State neutrality: The state does not promote any particular religion or religious practices.
Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of religion, which includes freedom of conscience and the ability to practice, profess, and propagate any religion.
I think Pakistan is Islamic Republic.
It explains all
Have you read the constitution of Pakistan. Look it up.
India state is not neutral. The current government promotes hindusim. Your entire constitution is not exercised.
You are a professor, I admire you Sir , I searched in Google , it gives :Article 2 of the constitution states that the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making. However, the constitution also states that "subject to law, public order, and morality, every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice, and propagate his religion". @@Taimur_Laal
@DebadritoDutta the question is was Congress secular BEFORE India was divided. Means to the end are under discussion. I think in written constitutions , states give protection to all its citizen. What happens on ground is a different story.
@@zainabkhalid2577 this needs further videos to clarify.
Hello sir, I love watching your lectures which are full of insights. I would request you if you can also make a detailed video on Poona Pact 1931 and demand for separate electorate by both Jinnah and later Ambedkar. Also if you can share your opinion on the anecdote “Doctor and the Saint” written by Arundhati Roy.
- With love and respect from India
Thank you for reading between the lines.
Very lame argument by Jinnah. In reality he felt insecure by Gandhi. It’s just human nature
Cope.
What a weird/indecent way to speak! Aap bol rahe hein ya cheekh rahay hein sir?
why Jinnah didn't form secular congress party in India? but he divided India
ICP(Indian Congress Party) was a secular party that leaned heavily in favor of Hindus. PML (Pakistan Muslim League) was also a secular party with a majority Muslim in the regions with predominant Muslim population. Creation of Pakistan was legitimate. Pakistan was not created for Islam. It was for Muslims from different faiths (Shia. Sunni, Ahmadi etc) to live in peace and harmony along with other ethnicities and faiths.
@@misscreative6865Muslim league was very secular party
@@misscreative6865ahamdia 😂
@@nb2.tv.21lol
@@nb2.tv.21 have i mentioned that it wasn't?
The partition as violent as it was saved many more lives. Even though many innocent Hindus and Muslims lost their lives, not partitioning India would have had far more disastrous results largely for Muslims but to a degree for Hindus as well. India staying together would have had a much more violent future. There we Hindu extremists who were hell bent on not just dominating India but eliminating the Muslims from what they considered their land. On the other hand there were Muslims who wanted to bring back the glory days of Muslims, a nostalgic rule of the Mughal period where Muslims as a minority held higher status. These two ideologies would have eventually clashed creating an unimaginable bloodbath. Division of India created a buffer between these two extreme groups and forced India to stay as secular as they could. Creation of Pakistan forced India to stay secular. As Pakistan descended into religious extremism it created a contrast between secular India and religious strife ridden Pakistan
But don't you think dividing people on religion just added more fuel to the fire.
The best solution for sub continent was to create 15 independent nation states (5 Muslim majority and 10 hindu majority) based on ethnicities with an EU style indian union with freedom of movement of people, goods and services. Dividing the region on the base of religion created more problems than solving anything.
@@braveheart8318 100% agreed with your point. Because neither Pakistan nor India is a country of one nation.
@@braveheart8318 religion is a very weak cohesive force to connect a country.. with islam you guys cannot decide which islam is the true Islam.. and keep fighting..
Similarly with Hinduism you cannot decide which religion should be considered Hindu.. because as per definition Sikh Jain buddist all are considered Hindu.. even lingayat and Arya demand they should be considered as a separate religious identity..
Hence common history, culture and language has always been a better glue..
Hence India has been divided into state based on history and language..
And each has its own federal government and laws
@@farhanpathan2976 Yes india wasn't a single nation do you expect a region bigger than European Union Country
4,9mn square kilometre British india
Eu 4.2 million sq km
And more diversity than entire continental Africa to be homogenous. No right india was a sub continent and still is a federation of state..
It had its own special culture and philosophy
Watching from India.
British colonialism wanted it Interestingly US wanted an undivided India but British prevailed (Reference correspondence of British & US ) quoted by Prof.Ishtiyaq Ahmed
Gandhi wanted to support khilafat movt that's why jinnah became angry and called it a psiedo nationalist approach.
It had nothing to do with hindu references as mahatma .
2) after 1937 election debacle jinnah changed strategy and and started harping on religion.it was the first time when he started calling INC a hindu organisation.
3)hindus were fascists still he wanted to live in Bombay after Partition!
4) ishtiaq ahmed on jinnah book clearly divided his life into 3 phases and 3rd phase was entirely communal especially after 1937 .
4) he was only focussed on grabing power and creating pakistan thats why he used to give diff versions of pak to diff stakeholders. In english he wsed to showoff his legal talent and in regional languages just focus on garnering support to create pak. Jinnah in 2 phases is diff to reconcile
Absolutely Right question asked
I always look forward to your videos
The subject used to called Social studies in schools during the 70s. When was it rebranded as Pakistan studies?
Ustad g this is very interesting and makes sense. Could you please read Ishtiaq Ahmed's book Jinnah and review it please. I have yet to see an academic seriously discussing with Ishtiaq Ahmed's idea where he solely blames for India's partition. Please take a look.
In 1946, at Islamia College Quaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah:
“We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.”
@@osamaali5969 and according to Jinnah Islamic principles were identical with the slogan of the French Revolution: Liberty Equality and Fraternity. How do you a square that circle?
@@Taimur_Laal that's stupidity at its best.. a religious theocracy that ask of second class citizenship under shariya for non Muslim is liberty equality and fraternity 😂😂😂
@@Taimur_Laal It's not Quaid e Azam who take the word from french, it was the french who take the words from Islamic principles.
@@Taimur_LaalIf equality prevails. Who will give zakat to whom? One of the major basic pillar of Is*lam falls apart...
You mean to say .... Jinha become permenant member of muslim fundamentalist party ( Muslim of League) because of Hindu fundamentalism in Congress...?
I am still confused what was Jinnah when in Congress and after congress.... Fundamentalist or Secular...?
Jinnah Sahib once wrote to a friend, to do politics in India one has to be either Hindu or Muslim and I have chosen to be a Muslim. Gandhi Gee was a religious personality as well and as such did not see religion separate from politics. Nehru Gee on the other hand was a secular person. Rather he was inclined towards socialism.
it doesnot make any sense why he wanted a seperatr nation if he didnot liked the party form a new secular party not nation😂😂😂
1:54 Buddy do you guys even know what secularism is?
Secularism is not lack of religion.. it's a simple principle that state will not interfere with religious practices vice-versa religion should not interfere in states affairs like education, military, judiciary, laws, etc etc..
In that area Indian constitution and IPC, CrPC and the Evidence Act.. are secular it doesn't include religion as a criteria for laws and opportunities. Every individual is same under law..
And on the civilian Liberty side the state don't interfere with religious practices like Muslim laws board Christian law Parsi laws and Hindu code Bill..
He left Congress because it wasn’t secular enough while he himself was involved in Muslim League even before leaving the Congress, and he then led a completely religious party. He confuses me so much. Imran Khan is his true successor. Confused and messed up
Sir wo jo ess se pehly wali video thi wo b dubara public kary aur sir jo ap ne video ko private kiya tha os k baad comment kyon remove ho gaye video ko dubara public hony per, comments to rehny chaiye thy
You have rightly explained the reason of the creation of Pakistan.
The time has proved it right.
Jinnah in the beginning wanted constitutional rights and proportional representation within the Indian federation.
However gradually he head left with no option but to demand and accept the division of India.
Congress leadership more than Jinnah are responsible for the creation of Pakistan.
If Pakistan was to be a secular state according to Jinnah. Then show me one instance where he used the word secularism for Pakistan?
What do you think the term secularism was coined after 1948 so Jinnah did not knew the term thus did not use it?
To the contrary, he used the word Islam, Islamic etc. for Pakistan numerous times.
@@seekhoarseekhao7196 August 11th Speech to Assembly charged with the responsibility of framing the constitution of the country. Read it fully.
@@Taimur_Laal Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic". Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels.
السلام علیکم و رحمتہ اللّہ
@taimur_laal واجب الاحترام
ہمیں صرف اتنا بتا دیں کہ اتنی بڑی ہجرت اور اتنی زیادہ قربانیاں کیا ہمارے بڑوں نے اس لیے دیں تھیں کہ ہم ایک سیکولر ریاست بن سکیں اور مشہور نعرہ جو اب بھی لوگوں کی یاداشت میں موجود پاکستان کا مطلب کیا لاالہ الااللہ وہ بھی غالباً سیکولر پاکستان کے لیے تھا۔
ہسٹری اور فلسفے کے استاد کی حیثیت سے یہ کتنی بڑی بد دیانتی ہے کہ آ پ صرف ایک محسوس موقف کی ترجمانی کر رہے ہیں اور باقی ساری تاریخ کو نظر انداز
So after capitalism what is left for us in democracy? This guy is so powerful he can make jinnah look communalism supporter😭,btw his claim about jinnah on Congress was correct!
Creation of Pakistan and Secularism are two different subject matters. India is a secular country, however it is a Hindu majority country. The creation of Pakistan was to give a very large number of Muslims freedom and independence from Hindu majority. Even though European countries are secular, they are independent countries based on cultural and religious(Catholic and Protestant) divisions.
Normally I enjoy your videos on Economics. But this is a rather strange video. One has to recognize that Gandhi's emergence as a major leader reduced Jinnah's cache in the Congress. Ignoring this is quite a lapse.
Sir apko black hole youtube channel men invite krna chahye, infront of parvez houdbhoy and dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed. Bohot maza ayega
Jinnah was also a NAYA MUSALMAAN JAYDA ALLAH ALLAH BOLE . Mohd Ali Jinnah father was a Kathiawadi Gujrati Hindu from Lohana community his name was Jinnah Bhai Thakkar converted to Islam and became Ismaili Shia Jinnah Bhai Ponja because he had started 🐟 Fishery business which was objected by his Kathiawadi Hindu Lohana community . Mohd Ali Jinnah grandfather name was Ponja Bhai Thakkar .
Dr. Taimur, what was the vision of Quaid e Azam?
What type of system he thought to be feasible n beneficial, for Pakistan?
Hybrid Liberal socialism type with combo of liberalism, socialism, and also democratic communism.
Or
He held strong inclination toward a single ideology?
When Jinah sb said that we hv to fight for both Britian & Hindu Congress Imperlists, he clearly meant that only British were not Fascist but Indian Congress were also the same, as the latter was predominantly Brahmanist in approach with members having dual membership in Jangsangh / Hindu Mahasaba also [completely Castists who wanted to subdue the majoritarian lower castes (Lower casts, who to the dictionary of Brahmans are not basically hindus)]
His description was correct and has been proved so in the last 70 years.
So whether you endorse it or not, facts remains so..
Who is feeding these stupidity.....Congress is so secular that Gandhiji has to lose his life by the hand of Hindu centred person Nathuram godse who thought Gandhiji was responsible for the creation of Pakistan by cutting India into three parts and partition atrocities....don't even know your own basic things about these things,but Gyan pelna zaroori hai....
Did Jinnah make Pakistan for all Muslims in British India ?
What was Jinnah’s plan for the Muslims who would be left behind in India after partition?
Hello professor , I am not a fan of Gandhi but there are few doubt abt it
A. The Congress is hindu party argument goes back to even to the times of Syed ahmed khan where he accused Congress on same line of reasoning
2. Gandhian use of religious symbolims was criticised not just by Jinnah but many other leaders from Annie besant to ambedkar, Gandhian way involved has a whole set of things he succefully deployed in South Africa u unite the indian population which a mix of diff religion n ethnicity so on his party perhaps he could not saw the long term consequences but still his use of religious symbols was not limited to Hinduism but it involved the islamic symbolism becoz in his mind he was bringing together two groups for a common cause to fight British , it certainly not abt hindu chavnism otherwise there would not have been accusations on him to for muslim appeasement ever since the non cooperation movement.
3. Yes Jinnah was certainly a constitutionalist during this period who opposed the Gandhian method but he was not alone it still does not explain the turned he took to play an absolute communal card to get his ways specially since he return from England during mid 1930s
Thank you for all the informative lectures you provide sir
@@cogito9350 as I said thrice in my video. These are not my views but the views of Jinnah.
@@Taimur_Laal Gandhi used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar.
He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses
لاکھوں شہدا نے قربانی اس لئیے دی تھی کہ ایک ایسی ریاست قائم ہو گی جہاں ﷲ کا دین نافظ ہو گا، اپنا سیکولرزم اپنے پاس رکھئیے، پاکستان کا ایک ہی مطلب ہے لا الہ الاﷲ
who got martyred for Pakistan?
Those people who were living happily in their home. Because of your stupid religion. They have to die and leave their house and everything.
Nobody sacrificed anything. People lost everything. Get outta bubble that Pakistan education teach you.
Only landlords won and start running it because they knew they can't do it in India. Plus, Nehru let you guys have Pakistan. Hindus were in majority. You think we would have let you break our nation.
Thank you so much sir, in easy words with references you made all the points so clear that what was the objective of Mr Jinnah to form Pakistan now it is easy to understand why he wanted to have a secular Pakistan. Basically he wanted to form Pakistan not only for Muslims but for other communities as well in which all religious communities live peacefully without discrimination. His vision was clear but in Pakistan studies fictional stories are given.
i love your work and thank you for this video. but as an aside, why is this even the question both muslim and seculars ask? 75 years on why do pakistanis keep revisiting or lamenting partition. 1900s were the time of nation states everywhere in the world including europe and africa. india pakistan bangladesh arent special in that way. Pakistan India and Bangladesh had never been a single country for milleniums prior to 1947, (yes despite having kingdoms spanning areas in both or all countries during time period after 1200). People of west Pakistan are simply the people of Indus valley, for 5000+ years. religion aside. after throwing over a colonial power why should they have stayed with India to begin with?
Excellent clip that brings home the hidden in plain sight truth ! Jinnah sahib only reluctantly went for a separate Islamic/Muslim state ONLY when he failed to bring fellow Hindu leaders to a socially-responsible sense. For those Anglophile Hindus it was and is more important to uphold democratic principles than to create are truely peaceful post-British independent Indian multi-ethnic society/state ! 😅 ❤ ❤ ❤
Pakistan is a country with no contribution to independence especially Punjab. Hence there is no real bonding as they got freedom free of cost.
Punjab and Bengal paid the highest cost for freedom. What cost did south and Central provinces pay?
ICP(Indian Congress Party) was a secular party that leaned heavily in favor of Hindus. PML (Pakistan Muslim League) was also a secular party with a majority Muslim in the regions with predominant Muslim population. Creation of Pakistan was legitimate. Pakistan was not created for Islam. It was for Muslims from different faiths (Shia. Sunni, Ahmadi etc) to live in peace and harmony along with other ethnicities and faiths.
If there is one this congress is it is secular...it's been since Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi was killed because he tried to stop riots. Nehru is abused daily by BJP cuz he made India secular country. The Indian constitution which is out holy book is secular to its core
And if you are quoting a former PM of yours the let me quote ours, Nehru said that Jinnah was a communal man who wanted to divide this country because he could win elections
pot calling the kettle black perfectly suits jinnah
Jinnah wanted power and power alone. And he was british fanboy inside and outside.
Once gandhi came , he realised his quest of real power is not possible .
He was never jailed because he never fought against british.
British knew he loved britain so why would he would be jailed by them.
Btw in 1885 to 1920 , congress was only asking for autonomy or devolution of power in par with white canada australia and new zealand . They were not asking for independence.
Gandhi came and changed narrative towards mass protest which quickly turned to demand for independence. This was because british renege on promises which they made for autonomy during ww1.
SO BRITISH fanboy jinnah left congress. He was not aligned to vision of independent india.
Rubbish !! Jinnah was greedy for power and wanted to be the PM
Not one day in jail
Not one book written
Not one speech of importance
Just a stooge of the British
Partition was a blessing for India : earned on the blood of more than a million innocent civilians. Sad but true
Typical layman's rant " Jinnah never went to jail"......thts because Jinnah's character was extension of his Law Practice. He was the top notch lawyer of his time and hence believed in constitutional struggle remaining within ambit of law. Same was reflected in his political struggle...he never believed in street politics or policy of agitation and hence never went to jail.."Jinnah was greedy for power and wanted to be PM"?? Really, what an absurd argument keeping the fact in mind that he was already counting his days as he was suffering from Tuberculosis. Moreover, he rejected offers made by Subhash Chamdrabose and C. Rajagopalachari for seat of PM in independent India which he refused..
@@Rathore12438Jinnah was not a far sighted person ,he was not happy with freedom struggle as he felt that Congress after independence would make India into a Country where Hindus will dominate ,that is why for 15 years left India and stayed in Britain and when there was a plan that Muslim will great two seperate Country Carved out of India that is Pakistan and Bangladesh that he again entered freedom struggle with great fervour .if Jinnah was intelligent person ,he would press for Secular Constitution for Pakistan.for Punjab undivided would have it borders upto Gurgaon 25 km from Delhi .in that way he could have Controlled the reins of Nehru as Prime minister of India .Jinnah neve had any faith on his Muslim Community as he Knew ,they Want Only whole of Kashmir Srinagar Valley .Nehru being a lawyer was first put to jail ,for Charge of stealing a bicycle .British can put anyone to jail under Flimsy ground and suffer for rest of life in jail
@@sanjeevverma4533 You are absolutely wrong. Idea of Pakistan was floated in 1940 while Jinnah came back in 1934. He was far sighted as it's evident from the events that are unfolding in today's India since BJP came to power. Jinnah expired a year after partition thats why he wasn't able to formulate a constitution...it's not an easy task to make constitution in a year time...Even Indian constitution was implemented in January 1950 ( third year of independence)....Nehru was lawyer only by his degree and not as a profession..Britannica "On his return to India, Nehru at first had tried to settle down as a lawyer. Unlike his father, however, he had only a desultory interest in his profession and did not relish either the practice of law or the company of lawyers"...hence, in no way can he be compared with Jinnah as a lawyer.
And I believee that was why (congress was secular) Jinnah did not join ML in 1906. And some people use this argument against Jinnah. Correct me if I am wrong.
BJP have never stated that they want to make India a Hindu Rashtra. India will always be a secular country because Hindus are secular and our constitution reflects the same.
@@snkumarkumar1859 a bit of a muddle. But I’m glad to hear you accept secularism.
Very informative video ❤❤❤
Thanks Jinnah.
چنگے رہ گئے
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who is himself an Islamic fundamentalist, will definitely blame others.
And the people living in his creation will also lie in the same way.
Indeed,this was the core reason why pakistan came into being,nd jinnah nd his other fellows fought for their independence against british imperialists nd a hindu congress.
This is what Jinnah claimed. Please be clear that this is not necessarily the motivation of everyone.
People commenting here don’t got the point , Jinnah was for Hindu Muslim unity up till Congress was secular but when it became evident that Hindu leaders would dominate congress policies and not adhere to minority demands that would ensure rights to them then he sought for a independent Muslim states it was his Plan B or sort.
these are excuses, he would have known he is lying from his heart, if congress was hindu, they would not have supported khalifat movement in india, when he found muslims had strong demography in both west and east which won elections for muslim league, he knew it was time to utilize it to realize the wahhabi dream of his forefathers from AMU to syed ahmed barelvi to dehlvi, they kept plotting for a muslim state throughout and they got it, and we all have seen what they did to minorities after that...
Professor Chicha.,....if we can elect a government democratically, why not use the same yardstick to appoint Judges, Professors, Teachers, Doctors, Army & Police Officials....etc.....
CHICHA PLEASE ANSWER 😂😂😂😂😂
Bharat was,is and always will be a secular state which ever party rules .
Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic".
Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that:
"Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
Jinnah's statements may have been correct in a few cases in politics but in historical reality it gave a completely wrong message. Therefore students of Pakistan are deprived of knowing proper history. The complete secularism of the Congress may have failed in practice at various points, but the Congress had no fewer Muslim leaders and supporters than the Muslim League. Today there is no Jinnah, no glory of the Muslim League. But still Gandhi's ideals and methods are being discussed in the world, research is being done and the political activities of the Congress have not stopped.
बहुत उम्दा। शाबाश। जीयो दोस्त।
The issue does not lie with secularism but what could majority do. Jinnah believed that Britishers with all their flaws did not unnecessarily interefered in religious issues and allowed muslims to follow to live and operate under their religion. He wanted muslims to be given sort of veto rights when a legislation affects them. Nehru and a lot of Congress fellows were against this and wanted Jinnah to get this settled after independence but he being a shrewd lawyer knew that after independence he along with muslims will be at the mercy of majority. This is exactly what happened when BJP came into power proving Jinnah was right in his assumption.
The real reason why Muslim are really unhappy is BJP govt is treating them as Muslims have been treating their minorities for decades and centuries...
BJP isn't actively discriminating against Muslim..
But Indian Muslim have been the centre point of most of Indian policy since independence.. congress in it attempt to defend its vision of post independence India.. tried very hard to keep Muslim happy.. so all our foreign policy and internal policies were in consideration of keeping them happy..
Muslim took this to be norm .
Christian Jain Sikh or Parsi were never a good political vote bank.. due to our size.. im a Christian.. all the opportunity that are created are created equally and we all have equal rights to pursue the road to prosperity..
But importance of Indian constitution is, that never cared about your religion while creating opportunities..
hence we all succeed in education and wealth..
Muslim took undue advantage of the population boom.. and increased population size.
Now post 2014 Modi did nothing but made them irrelevant to central government policy position.. ie they don't have any special vetto as you said..
So what policy applies to all will apply to them..
This irrelevance is what Muslim call discrimination..
Now tell me what will you call all the Muslim countries..
None of them ever had any special vetto for their own affairs..
And remember Muslim are not the minorities they are second largest majority of India.. India has i think 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population in the world
Thank God for Jinnah. or. ,we would be stuck with 600 million of these peaceful people.
@ 11.22 -- 11.25 U misspoke Joti Lal' Congress. U meant Moti Lal Nehru's Congress
Yes sorry. I meant to say Motilal.
I agree and believe in Quaid point of view regarding congress parochial and prejudiced party.
If Jinnah favoured secularism, then why he created a muslim and religious country
@@abduljabbardurrani1490 is that such a difficult question to answer?
@@Taimur_Laal Hahaha, I can understand the pain that happen in the belly of secular when they hear the word "Islamic".
Please also read the speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on 25 January 1948 where he clearly said that:
"Some people wanted to create a propaganda that constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Sharia, he didn't stopped there he continued Islamic principles have no parallels. It's as applicable as 1300 yeas ago"
Taimur sir now tell me whats your research or opinion about CONGRESS ?? is congress religous or secular?
Thanks Jinnah for partition 🙏🙏
Look how secular Pakistan has become in the guidance of Jinnah.
Rejection of Hindu Congress is not the same as accepting Secularism. Your implied conclusion is a colossal standing on feet of sand.
In Game theory sometimes one finds himself at the second end where his actions are solely dependant on the first persons actions.
Ab q k congress was no more a secular party Muslims had no option other than thinking through a binary created by Congress
You should read book by ishtaq ahmad "Jinnah success and failure" by pakistani author besed in swdean
Perhaps Jinnah had the foresight to see the eventuality of Hindutva in India. With this premise, Pakistan can be rightly justified if it adopts secularism as its polity. However, the equal rights given to all religions in secularism represents the extremes of religious conflicts in a nation. By implication, equal rights to all ethnicities, even if belonging to the same religion, is a logical implication of secularism. Or is there some other terminology for such a system whereby there are equal rights to all ethnicities? Please enlighten.
Nothing can justify the creation of Pakistan because it was created in the fear of DEMOCRACY because hindus had the numbers. Had Hindus allow Muslims to rule like earlier, they would have never disintegrated Hindustan.
Coming to your rant of Hindutva, kindly notice Hindutva is a reaction to 1000 years of Jihad and Islamic subjugation of Hindus in their own native land. You knew Hindus will take revenge count by count if given a chance. That's why you fled. You knew your mistakes of past and you were (still are) proud of it.
Hindi me kehte hain "Chor k dadhi me teenka". Tumhe lga Hindu bhi ab Muslamano se jiziyah type tax lene lgenge. Aur wo sari properties wapas lenge jo Mughal kings ne Hinduo se loot kar tum newly converts me distribute kiya tha.
Rahi baat Gandhi ki toh he used both Hindu & Muslim symbols. He even promoted staunch atheists like Nehru. If you observe carefully, Gandhi was trying to snatch muslims from jinnah and dalits from Ambedkar.
He was a typical Gujarati "baniya" who could collaborate with britishers (like Jinnah, Nehru & Ambedkar) and use terms like "Ram rajya" , "Muslim Caliphate" , "Allah Ishwar tero naam" , "Harijan" in order to make himself the tallest leader of the masses.
Jinnah was opportunist!
If Pakistan became an Islamic country then India has the equal right to become a Hindu country. No if but, SECULAR word was NOT the part of original Indian constitution, it was pushen in by Indira Gandhi during Emergency without discussing in parliament when all the opposition was behind bars. SECULAR word has done more harm to the state of India than anything. Moreover, it was inducted into PREAMBLE to which supreme court says nobody can touch the Preamble of constitution and is the soul of it.
@@dewarkanath2853 I think Pakistan and India should both be secular.