Im sorry to say and I have no disrespect for any pakistani but I feel Mr Jinnah did not think through the idea of Pakistan. I guess the problems Mr Sethi is suggesting in this conversation, which Mr Jinnah faced after the partition should have been considered while asking for a separate state. The fact that two most powerful leaders (Jinah & Liaquat Ali) of league did not know anything about the social and geo political state of the region they acquired.
You are right. At the end of the day, Pakistan is Jinnahs blunder. The people of Pakistan are part of the north Indian branch of the great Indian family. Pakistan is an aberration and the theory on which pakistan was founded does not hold water. Pakistan must reconcile with India in peace in a south asia without borders as a first step.
The mass genocide type killing of Hindus by Muslims was initiated in Calcutta and Bengal by the call for direct action by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in 1945-46 during Muslim League rule in Bengal. It was done to create condition for partition. The first rioting in Punjab in 1947 was in the west Punjab area dominated by Muslims. So, the killing of Hindus and Sikhs was done first by Muslims in Muslim dominated areas.this phrase is totally biased
Jinnah demanded fixed portfolio for Muslims like defense, home etc. In the whole world this rule can not implemented in any nation. This rule was introduced in Lebanon. Now that nation is in civil war. Nehru was a wise man. He rejected Jinnah's communal demands. So Pakistan is actually a men made nation not a natural country.
With due respect,I would like to remind Mr. Sethi that even the family of Mr.Jinnahlives in india.Jinnah had one daughter who married a parsi guy their relations(jinnah nd daug.) soured and she moved to US.But his Grandchildren remain in India and His Grandson is NUSLI WADIA OF BOMBAY DYEING.
nehru was the best qualified person..if india would have atheist state..then he would have pm and no partition....but with the same thing..britian would have not ruled india !!!
Patel and Nehru were right, it is impossible to leave with Muslim. Look at the world now. It is leaving proof. Full of terror.
France, Germany, Engkand, United State all gave Pakistania refuse and what did Pakistan gave them? Only terror, you teh largest exporter of terror. That is your industry.
No your fault, it is all Mumamuds fault. He started Islam with violence and that is what you have. Good luck Pakis.
Glad India was split, otherwaise blood bath would have been at mass scale.
Hmm, hmm wrong. I agree that the original vision of Jinnah was not a relegious one, where Najam Sethi goes wrong is in beliving that India wanted to take away muslim rights. Real reason for creation of pakistan is the simple question of whether a community's rights can be protected without the safeguards that Jinnah wanted. Nehru believed that it should be protected by creating a secular of that sort- Jinnah believed that was too naive.
The argument of Sethiji about who broke India is faulty. If Jinnah wanted unity, how come he agreed to partition? Jinnah put forth argument of loose federation that wasnt accetable so partiiton was the outcome. Jinnah if wanted unity, had to keep faith in India(the motherland) and not even coin partition idea, forget accepting it. India made a wise choice, given where Pakistan is today and where India is today!
I guess Pt. Nehru/Patel were right - "Pakistan chalega nahin....". Sethi's view of activities during partition and on Jinnah is in line with Maulana Azad paper which were released after his (Azad) death. I disagree with hsi comments that Indian Muslim are facing same discrimination issues as they were during 40s/60s/70s. Things have changed in India, not perfect but huge progress. I find it is difficult for Pakistani Muslims (majority) to accept Indian Muslims have a fair chance in India.
Najam says "Kashmir nahi diya !" Jung kar li ? Paise nahi diye ! After Indians agreed for partition, and before finalization of border Kashmir was attacked by Mujahideen backed by Pak government ! How could India give Pak money which Pak would use against India in war in Kashmir, would Pak had done same if she were at the India's place ? At first place partition would never been allowed , and I think Pakistanis had suffered the pain of partition in 1971 just Indian suffered same in 1947.
This is the fact and nobody can deny that Jinnha could not come up with the innovative way to fight against British like other did after sidelined by Gandhi and Neharu ! Those two obviously were not only representative of the Hindus, the irony is that Jinnha was Congress centric (Just like today Pakistan is India centric) otherwise he would have struggle on his own like all the other great guys did in India e.g. (Bhagat Singh, Savarkar,Bose, Azad).
Not all who fought for the Indian Independence had same opinion , see the two great personalities Vir Savrakar was strongest opponent of Gandhi, Subhashchandra Bose was not believer of non violence thats why he come up with innovative idea to take help of Enemies of British to fight against them ! Saheed Bhagat Singh fed up with non violence principle and had chosen to go for armed struggle ,all fought for India not for any one community or for any religion.
A sincere question , if Jinna did not want the partition of India , then in what way , and upto what extent he fought against British ? Search history he did not fought against British at all , I mean even if he was sidelined by Neharu and Patel he could have fought against British for independence of India , he had not put any resistance against Brithish at all ,all he fought against the Neharu and Gandhi in a lame effort to claim leadership of the India !
Im sorry to say and I have no disrespect for any pakistani but I feel Mr Jinnah did not think through the idea of Pakistan. I guess the problems Mr Sethi is suggesting in this conversation, which Mr Jinnah faced after the partition should have been considered while asking for a separate state. The fact that two most powerful leaders (Jinah & Liaquat Ali) of league did not know anything about the social and geo political state of the region they acquired.
rohitigc 9 months ago
@rohitigc
You are right. At the end of the day, Pakistan is Jinnahs blunder. The people of Pakistan are part of the north Indian branch of the great Indian family. Pakistan is an aberration and the theory on which pakistan was founded does not hold water. Pakistan must reconcile with India in peace in a south asia without borders as a first step.
zafarso 5 months ago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:-
The mass genocide type killing of Hindus by Muslims was initiated in Calcutta and Bengal by the call for direct action by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in 1945-46 during Muslim League rule in Bengal. It was done to create condition for partition. The first rioting in Punjab in 1947 was in the west Punjab area dominated by Muslims. So, the killing of Hindus and Sikhs was done first by Muslims in Muslim dominated areas.this phrase is totally biased
hitmanruturns 10 months ago
Jinnah demanded fixed portfolio for Muslims like defense, home etc. In the whole world this rule can not implemented in any nation. This rule was introduced in Lebanon. Now that nation is in civil war. Nehru was a wise man. He rejected Jinnah's communal demands. So Pakistan is actually a men made nation not a natural country.
ynrldh 11 months ago
i m not agreed with the fact . jinnah was also in the same line as nehru
both want to be the supremo of india n 4 tht they better got the solution of devision
MrQwertyui12345678 1 year ago
With due respect,I would like to remind Mr. Sethi that even the family of Mr.Jinnahlives in india.Jinnah had one daughter who married a parsi guy their relations(jinnah nd daug.) soured and she moved to US.But his Grandchildren remain in India and His Grandson is NUSLI WADIA OF BOMBAY DYEING.
xizvw 1 year ago
nehru was the best qualified person..if india would have atheist state..then he would have pm and no partition....but with the same thing..britian would have not ruled india !!!
sushil2002 1 year ago
Patel and Nehru were right, it is impossible to leave with Muslim. Look at the world now. It is leaving proof. Full of terror.
France, Germany, Engkand, United State all gave Pakistania refuse and what did Pakistan gave them? Only terror, you teh largest exporter of terror. That is your industry.
No your fault, it is all Mumamuds fault. He started Islam with violence and that is what you have. Good luck Pakis.
Glad India was split, otherwaise blood bath would have been at mass scale.
savita1926 1 year ago
Hmm, hmm wrong. I agree that the original vision of Jinnah was not a relegious one, where Najam Sethi goes wrong is in beliving that India wanted to take away muslim rights. Real reason for creation of pakistan is the simple question of whether a community's rights can be protected without the safeguards that Jinnah wanted. Nehru believed that it should be protected by creating a secular of that sort- Jinnah believed that was too naive.
bozrich 1 year ago
The argument of Sethiji about who broke India is faulty. If Jinnah wanted unity, how come he agreed to partition? Jinnah put forth argument of loose federation that wasnt accetable so partiiton was the outcome. Jinnah if wanted unity, had to keep faith in India(the motherland) and not even coin partition idea, forget accepting it. India made a wise choice, given where Pakistan is today and where India is today!
2009desibanda 1 year ago
I guess Pt. Nehru/Patel were right - "Pakistan chalega nahin....". Sethi's view of activities during partition and on Jinnah is in line with Maulana Azad paper which were released after his (Azad) death. I disagree with hsi comments that Indian Muslim are facing same discrimination issues as they were during 40s/60s/70s. Things have changed in India, not perfect but huge progress. I find it is difficult for Pakistani Muslims (majority) to accept Indian Muslims have a fair chance in India.
Immy1993 1 year ago
fine..then why pakis student dont respect mr.gandhi,azad..and others..
perfectfriend007 1 year ago
mr.sethi is very educated person and i very much respect of his view..
but here mr.sethi not compelty but wrong to the extent..
in his first video he said that jinnah never against hindus..
but is not fact..
1..1923 jinaah congress ki meeting se chale gye..bcoz of VANDE MAtaraM..
2..bcz of unity nehru left his religion and become a athiest..
3..only muslim lengue was in the favor of partions..other muslim leader was not ..(like,-mr.azad, abdul gaffar,and many ...)
perfectfriend007 1 year ago
Najam says "Kashmir nahi diya !" Jung kar li ? Paise nahi diye ! After Indians agreed for partition, and before finalization of border Kashmir was attacked by Mujahideen backed by Pak government ! How could India give Pak money which Pak would use against India in war in Kashmir, would Pak had done same if she were at the India's place ? At first place partition would never been allowed , and I think Pakistanis had suffered the pain of partition in 1971 just Indian suffered same in 1947.
serpent7700 1 year ago
This is the fact and nobody can deny that Jinnha could not come up with the innovative way to fight against British like other did after sidelined by Gandhi and Neharu ! Those two obviously were not only representative of the Hindus, the irony is that Jinnha was Congress centric (Just like today Pakistan is India centric) otherwise he would have struggle on his own like all the other great guys did in India e.g. (Bhagat Singh, Savarkar,Bose, Azad).
serpent7700 1 year ago
Not all who fought for the Indian Independence had same opinion , see the two great personalities Vir Savrakar was strongest opponent of Gandhi, Subhashchandra Bose was not believer of non violence thats why he come up with innovative idea to take help of Enemies of British to fight against them ! Saheed Bhagat Singh fed up with non violence principle and had chosen to go for armed struggle ,all fought for India not for any one community or for any religion.
serpent7700 1 year ago
A sincere question , if Jinna did not want the partition of India , then in what way , and upto what extent he fought against British ? Search history he did not fought against British at all , I mean even if he was sidelined by Neharu and Patel he could have fought against British for independence of India , he had not put any resistance against Brithish at all ,all he fought against the Neharu and Gandhi in a lame effort to claim leadership of the India !
serpent7700 1 year ago