08-16-2006, 02:10 AM
Pracs, may be you are right on some of the issues, questioning two-nation theory I don't think is something like a part of fashion, and I once again have to say that I'm never among those who refer two-nation theory invalid.
Main question in my last post was betrayal with Indian Muslims, you simply answered No, however, I didn't find any logic put forward by you. Saying "NO" is simply no answer.
One thing you need to be clear with that it was not a matter of choice for all Indian Muslims to migrate or stay in India. Basically the partition was only for those who were in Pakistan (at that time)
Now when the first issue remains unresolved, bringing into debate others is not very much advisable. However, the story of "UNTHAK MAHNAT" by our prestigious leaders is also to be looked at. Were it us, or thanks to Sir Adolf Hitler, whose efforts, although claiming some 30 or 40 million lives, also brought independence for much a large number of human.
Saudi Arabian liberation, as you refered, was not the result of post war situation. It was not a colony. It has got it's own history with King Saud and Abdul Wahab (the later is the former of WAHABI sect) Talk about it some other day.
Coming to Jordan, Lebenon, and almost all of the African countries, having a look at atlas makes much things clear. Thier borders are ofcourse straight lines drawn by thier colonial lords.
Coming back to the point, if you claim that independence of Sub-Continent was something else than post war situation, then I must say you are mistaken. Partition of it, I and others, have to agree was a different story. Although a lot exist who beleive that even partition of Pakistan was a result of post war colonial planning. We yet again leave this last point aside.
May be my post make you beleive that I'm not a patriot Pakistani and have objections on Quaid-e-Azam. I have emphatically stated it earlier that Pakistan is my faith and Quaid-e-Azam is my hero.
Redrafting the key points
-Betrayal with Indian Mulims.
-Liberation of Sub-Continent.
Shoaib
Main question in my last post was betrayal with Indian Muslims, you simply answered No, however, I didn't find any logic put forward by you. Saying "NO" is simply no answer.
One thing you need to be clear with that it was not a matter of choice for all Indian Muslims to migrate or stay in India. Basically the partition was only for those who were in Pakistan (at that time)
Now when the first issue remains unresolved, bringing into debate others is not very much advisable. However, the story of "UNTHAK MAHNAT" by our prestigious leaders is also to be looked at. Were it us, or thanks to Sir Adolf Hitler, whose efforts, although claiming some 30 or 40 million lives, also brought independence for much a large number of human.
Saudi Arabian liberation, as you refered, was not the result of post war situation. It was not a colony. It has got it's own history with King Saud and Abdul Wahab (the later is the former of WAHABI sect) Talk about it some other day.
Coming to Jordan, Lebenon, and almost all of the African countries, having a look at atlas makes much things clear. Thier borders are ofcourse straight lines drawn by thier colonial lords.
Coming back to the point, if you claim that independence of Sub-Continent was something else than post war situation, then I must say you are mistaken. Partition of it, I and others, have to agree was a different story. Although a lot exist who beleive that even partition of Pakistan was a result of post war colonial planning. We yet again leave this last point aside.
May be my post make you beleive that I'm not a patriot Pakistani and have objections on Quaid-e-Azam. I have emphatically stated it earlier that Pakistan is my faith and Quaid-e-Azam is my hero.
Redrafting the key points
-Betrayal with Indian Mulims.
-Liberation of Sub-Continent.
Shoaib
