09-23-2006, 03:28 AM
The blank post was to make you realize that the ball was in your court, and look it had worked.
Two things are being simultaneously debated, and perhaps no one of us exactly knows how things started.
I would follow my order.
1- Once again you are going against two-nation theory, or I should better say that your concept of it is different from what is generally accepted. So, I would repeat that according to you there was not concept of betrayal as Pakistani and Indian Muslims had always been different nation, and perhaps so where Bengalis. You are emphasing that Pakistan was made for people living in present Pakistan and not for all of the Muslims of sub-continent. According to you they are and always were a different nation. Referring to Iqbal's quote North Western Muslim State was for Muslims living in North West. You don't have yet denied that migration was not originally a part of division of sub-continent. I would like to have your clear opinion on this.
The concept of two-nation theory was of Quaid (No doubt that original idea came from Iqbal), now this is not the debate. Neither, I'm trying to prove there was a difference between Quaid and Iqbal in this issue. I can't conclude that what was Quaid's exact understanding of this concept, however, he defined it as stating that Muslims and Hindus are two different nations with different cultures, moral values and religion. (I'm not able to quote exact lines but hope that you know). This definition should not leave any doubt in anybodies mind about the crux of two-nation theory.
Some of ambiguity seems in your mind regarding the subject and this is way you seldom come with a straight stand on one point. And, this is way most of my posts are just to have clear statements by you. Or I'm not smart enough to get what you exactly meant. Perhaps, there might be some on confusions in my subconscious also.
2- nothing new was in there. Liberation of sub continent was a promise full filled, and according to you had there been no promise we had to achieve independence in some different way. Can you example of any British colony which was not liberated after WW2 or liberated as a result of bloody rebellion. (Hong Kong is exception) I think that freedom of almost all of the colonies whether British or others was the necessary outcome of WW2.
Had there been no war, in that case I've to believe that world had been a totally different place, with quite a huge influence of on their semi-independent colonies. I would come in with some logics in favour of my point in some future post. You said this freedom could have been a decade or two late but it was to happen, nothing in favour of this statement I found.
I anticipate that your approach towards this thread is similar to mine. Straight forward, blunt or soft statements are made to clarify the case and move to some conclusion and never are to be taken personal. Neither the aim behind is just to prove my point. I always value your comments on this and other posts.
Shoaib
The blank post was to make you realize that the ball was in your court, and look it had worked.
Two things are being simultaneously debated, and perhaps no one of us exactly knows how things started.
I would follow my order.
1- Once again you are going against two-nation theory, or I should better say that your concept of it is different from what is generally accepted. So, I would repeat that according to you there was not concept of betrayal as Pakistani and Indian Muslims had always been different nation, and perhaps so where Bengalis. You are emphasing that Pakistan was made for people living in present Pakistan and not for all of the Muslims of sub-continent. According to you they are and always were a different nation. Referring to Iqbal's quote North Western Muslim State was for Muslims living in North West. You don't have yet denied that migration was not originally a part of division of sub-continent. I would like to have your clear opinion on this.
The concept of two-nation theory was of Quaid (No doubt that original idea came from Iqbal), now this is not the debate. Neither, I'm trying to prove there was a difference between Quaid and Iqbal in this issue. I can't conclude that what was Quaid's exact understanding of this concept, however, he defined it as stating that Muslims and Hindus are two different nations with different cultures, moral values and religion. (I'm not able to quote exact lines but hope that you know). This definition should not leave any doubt in anybodies mind about the crux of two-nation theory.
Some of ambiguity seems in your mind regarding the subject and this is way you seldom come with a straight stand on one point. And, this is way most of my posts are just to have clear statements by you. Or I'm not smart enough to get what you exactly meant. Perhaps, there might be some on confusions in my subconscious also.
2- nothing new was in there. Liberation of sub continent was a promise full filled, and according to you had there been no promise we had to achieve independence in some different way. Can you example of any British colony which was not liberated after WW2 or liberated as a result of bloody rebellion. (Hong Kong is exception) I think that freedom of almost all of the colonies whether British or others was the necessary outcome of WW2.
Had there been no war, in that case I've to believe that world had been a totally different place, with quite a huge influence of on their semi-independent colonies. I would come in with some logics in favour of my point in some future post. You said this freedom could have been a decade or two late but it was to happen, nothing in favour of this statement I found.
I anticipate that your approach towards this thread is similar to mine. Straight forward, blunt or soft statements are made to clarify the case and move to some conclusion and never are to be taken personal. Neither the aim behind is just to prove my point. I always value your comments on this and other posts.
Shoaib
Two things are being simultaneously debated, and perhaps no one of us exactly knows how things started.
I would follow my order.
1- Once again you are going against two-nation theory, or I should better say that your concept of it is different from what is generally accepted. So, I would repeat that according to you there was not concept of betrayal as Pakistani and Indian Muslims had always been different nation, and perhaps so where Bengalis. You are emphasing that Pakistan was made for people living in present Pakistan and not for all of the Muslims of sub-continent. According to you they are and always were a different nation. Referring to Iqbal's quote North Western Muslim State was for Muslims living in North West. You don't have yet denied that migration was not originally a part of division of sub-continent. I would like to have your clear opinion on this.
The concept of two-nation theory was of Quaid (No doubt that original idea came from Iqbal), now this is not the debate. Neither, I'm trying to prove there was a difference between Quaid and Iqbal in this issue. I can't conclude that what was Quaid's exact understanding of this concept, however, he defined it as stating that Muslims and Hindus are two different nations with different cultures, moral values and religion. (I'm not able to quote exact lines but hope that you know). This definition should not leave any doubt in anybodies mind about the crux of two-nation theory.
Some of ambiguity seems in your mind regarding the subject and this is way you seldom come with a straight stand on one point. And, this is way most of my posts are just to have clear statements by you. Or I'm not smart enough to get what you exactly meant. Perhaps, there might be some on confusions in my subconscious also.
2- nothing new was in there. Liberation of sub continent was a promise full filled, and according to you had there been no promise we had to achieve independence in some different way. Can you example of any British colony which was not liberated after WW2 or liberated as a result of bloody rebellion. (Hong Kong is exception) I think that freedom of almost all of the colonies whether British or others was the necessary outcome of WW2.
Had there been no war, in that case I've to believe that world had been a totally different place, with quite a huge influence of on their semi-independent colonies. I would come in with some logics in favour of my point in some future post. You said this freedom could have been a decade or two late but it was to happen, nothing in favour of this statement I found.
I anticipate that your approach towards this thread is similar to mine. Straight forward, blunt or soft statements are made to clarify the case and move to some conclusion and never are to be taken personal. Neither the aim behind is just to prove my point. I always value your comments on this and other posts.
Shoaib
The blank post was to make you realize that the ball was in your court, and look it had worked.
Two things are being simultaneously debated, and perhaps no one of us exactly knows how things started.
I would follow my order.
1- Once again you are going against two-nation theory, or I should better say that your concept of it is different from what is generally accepted. So, I would repeat that according to you there was not concept of betrayal as Pakistani and Indian Muslims had always been different nation, and perhaps so where Bengalis. You are emphasing that Pakistan was made for people living in present Pakistan and not for all of the Muslims of sub-continent. According to you they are and always were a different nation. Referring to Iqbal's quote North Western Muslim State was for Muslims living in North West. You don't have yet denied that migration was not originally a part of division of sub-continent. I would like to have your clear opinion on this.
The concept of two-nation theory was of Quaid (No doubt that original idea came from Iqbal), now this is not the debate. Neither, I'm trying to prove there was a difference between Quaid and Iqbal in this issue. I can't conclude that what was Quaid's exact understanding of this concept, however, he defined it as stating that Muslims and Hindus are two different nations with different cultures, moral values and religion. (I'm not able to quote exact lines but hope that you know). This definition should not leave any doubt in anybodies mind about the crux of two-nation theory.
Some of ambiguity seems in your mind regarding the subject and this is way you seldom come with a straight stand on one point. And, this is way most of my posts are just to have clear statements by you. Or I'm not smart enough to get what you exactly meant. Perhaps, there might be some on confusions in my subconscious also.
2- nothing new was in there. Liberation of sub continent was a promise full filled, and according to you had there been no promise we had to achieve independence in some different way. Can you example of any British colony which was not liberated after WW2 or liberated as a result of bloody rebellion. (Hong Kong is exception) I think that freedom of almost all of the colonies whether British or others was the necessary outcome of WW2.
Had there been no war, in that case I've to believe that world had been a totally different place, with quite a huge influence of on their semi-independent colonies. I would come in with some logics in favour of my point in some future post. You said this freedom could have been a decade or two late but it was to happen, nothing in favour of this statement I found.
I anticipate that your approach towards this thread is similar to mine. Straight forward, blunt or soft statements are made to clarify the case and move to some conclusion and never are to be taken personal. Neither the aim behind is just to prove my point. I always value your comments on this and other posts.
Shoaib
