08-19-2006, 09:33 AM
Schuaeb, you are bringing in new variables, but before I discuss on let me make clear that I am not doubting any one's patriotism here,, its more of a discussion.
My answer tothe title of this thread is NO.. you missed my logic,.. where I go on to say that Pakistan and India are two different countries all together.. even before the first muslims set foot on what is today Pakistan. That is reason within itself. If you go by logic you will realise (as you already have) that it was not possible to move all the muslims to Pakistan, and that my friend had never been the intention of Jinnah or any other Muslim Leader. Jinnah did request some big industrialists and Business man (Habib, Ishphani etc) to move to Karachi to help Pakistan get on its two feet. As he did to various Civil Servants and Armed officers. That was it. Mass migration started of when Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan began the thrust and Muslims were being forced to leave their villages on the point of Swords. That is when all the Mayhem started. So there is logic to my answer.
Your new variable in the last post is about if the independence of Pakistan was more of a by product of the post world war scenario. Yes it was,.. that is what the King George promised to India,.. be loyal to the Crown and raise me a fighting machine, give us the raw material, keep your factories running and we will give you independance after the war. Remmeber Congress and Gandhi's civil dis0bediance movement... that was to black mail the crown and tell them what the wiritng on the wall was. The Muslim League ofcourse under the leader ship of Jinnah played it part right to not associate itself completely with it,.. and thereby got into a relatively better place with the British. That may have helped our case a bit.
But then a dozen or more countries got their independence, Hitlers war undoubtdly left Europe's Colonial powers week and the US strong. So its not Pakistan alone that made most from the second world war. Had all that not happened we would have straddled down perhaps a decade or two. And if Attlee's labour had not won the elections perhaps another five years or more. But all this has nothing to do with our title of the thread here.
I am a strong believer in the fact that the destiny of the Muslims of the subcontinent is in Pakistan, perhaps not a physical thing for all of the Muslims, but in some way it is and will be more profound in the future.
Another way to look at it is,.. would you consider saying that Afghanistan should have been part of British India because there are more muslims in India than Afghanistan or Iran ? that is how it is about Pakistan,. Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan did so as a matter of personal choice (or were driven by necessity), it was never meant for all the Muslims to migrate to Pakistan.
My answer tothe title of this thread is NO.. you missed my logic,.. where I go on to say that Pakistan and India are two different countries all together.. even before the first muslims set foot on what is today Pakistan. That is reason within itself. If you go by logic you will realise (as you already have) that it was not possible to move all the muslims to Pakistan, and that my friend had never been the intention of Jinnah or any other Muslim Leader. Jinnah did request some big industrialists and Business man (Habib, Ishphani etc) to move to Karachi to help Pakistan get on its two feet. As he did to various Civil Servants and Armed officers. That was it. Mass migration started of when Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan began the thrust and Muslims were being forced to leave their villages on the point of Swords. That is when all the Mayhem started. So there is logic to my answer.
Your new variable in the last post is about if the independence of Pakistan was more of a by product of the post world war scenario. Yes it was,.. that is what the King George promised to India,.. be loyal to the Crown and raise me a fighting machine, give us the raw material, keep your factories running and we will give you independance after the war. Remmeber Congress and Gandhi's civil dis0bediance movement... that was to black mail the crown and tell them what the wiritng on the wall was. The Muslim League ofcourse under the leader ship of Jinnah played it part right to not associate itself completely with it,.. and thereby got into a relatively better place with the British. That may have helped our case a bit.
But then a dozen or more countries got their independence, Hitlers war undoubtdly left Europe's Colonial powers week and the US strong. So its not Pakistan alone that made most from the second world war. Had all that not happened we would have straddled down perhaps a decade or two. And if Attlee's labour had not won the elections perhaps another five years or more. But all this has nothing to do with our title of the thread here.
I am a strong believer in the fact that the destiny of the Muslims of the subcontinent is in Pakistan, perhaps not a physical thing for all of the Muslims, but in some way it is and will be more profound in the future.
Another way to look at it is,.. would you consider saying that Afghanistan should have been part of British India because there are more muslims in India than Afghanistan or Iran ? that is how it is about Pakistan,. Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan did so as a matter of personal choice (or were driven by necessity), it was never meant for all the Muslims to migrate to Pakistan.
