Books and Research Materials

[Saiyan0321]

@Kaptaan @VCheng @Yankeestani @Waz Are you guys aware that Imran has been recommending books. Al criticism aside, i think this is a good step.

PM Imran's book club: This December, he recommends reading History of the Pathans​

With juggling household responsibilities, study workload and long working hours, pleasure reading has been pushed down most of our lists — but with Imran Khan recommending a book on the regular, we're thinking if the Prime Minister can make time, so can we!

"This month I recommend the book History of the Pathans by Brig (r) Haroon Rashid," the former cricket legend encouraged.




"Volume 7 which I am reading is about Pathan tribes like mine who came to India from Afghanistan in the last one thousand years and settled in various parts of India," he said, adding that it traces the role they played in shaping the history of the Subcontinent.

The author, considered a son of the Kohat soil unveiled not just the history, but the cultural heritage and traditions of Pathan land. While to many, the name suggests they are a native of Afghanistan or the North West Frontier of Pakistan; to most, the race with its extremely complicated ramification into various tribes and clans, is still a mystery.

Previously, Khan's November recommendation included Capitalism's Achilles Heel, an eye-opening account of how white collar criminals, businessmen and politicians illegally launder dirty money, and its impact on individuals, institutions and countries.




The Forty Rules of Love by Elif Shafak, narrating the tales of Maulana Jalal-ud-Din Rumi and his companion Shams Tabraiz, also made it to his list in October, and personally, we loved the mystic reading experience.

It's not just books; the premier has also found the time to recommend some TV shows. Everyone is well aware of Khan's love for Diliris Ertugrul that eventually got the entire nation hooked. Others include Yunus Emre: Aşkin Yolculuğu, the story of a great Sufi, Islamic poet, mystic and poor villager who wholly dedicated his life to Allah and searching for unity.

PM Imran's book club: This December, he recommends reading History of the Pathans

"Volume 7 which I am reading is about Pathan tribes like mine who came from Afghanistan and settled in various parts of India."

images.dawn.com

@T-123456 @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @Saithan @Webslave @anmdt So the PM Choice are

October; Forty rules of Love

November; Capitalism Achilles heels

December History of Pathans

I can get October and November but cant find December Kaptaan needs to start recommending books i can get or attach a PDF with his post. Sukhi Recommendation is not fun

 

[Saiyan0321]

From Jinnah to Zia​

A banker by profession, Salim Ansar has a passion for history and historic books. His personal library already boasts a treasure trove of over 7,000 rare and unique books.
Every week, we shall take a leaf from one such book and treat you to a little taste of history.
BOOK NAME: From Jinnah to Zia
AUTHOR: Muhammad Munir, Chief Justice of Pakistan (r)
PUBLISHER: Vanguard Books Ltd - Lahore
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 1980
The following excerpt has been taken from Pages: 75 — 79

“In this book the learned former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who first articulated and upheld the famous ‘law of necessity’ (whereby hangs a Pakistani tale), asks the most relevant question of the time. Was the new Pakistani state a secular or theological one? How have subsequent leaders and regimes visualized the nature of the state and to what consequent? What is the form and content of the ideology of Pakistan? What is the nature of the relationship between certain political parties, like the Jamaat-i-Islami and Islam and Pakistan? How will recent amendments to the 1973 Constitution affect the body politic of this country? How can the resurgence of Islam be placed in the wider context of geo-political changes in the Middle East and the South Asian region?
THE FIRST CONSTITUTION
“The period from 24th October to 12th April 1955 was a period of crisis created by the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by the Governor-General, Ghulam Muhammad. During this period nothing was said about Islam, the Quran and Sunnah, the compilations of hadis or the exposition of Islamic law by the four imams and the two disciples of Imam Abu Hanifa. The whole attention of the country was riveted on the litigation before the Federal Court which instead of going back to the Quran and Sunnah was going back to England, to the days of Bracton and Lord Mansfield and was engaged in expounding the traditions of democracy, and the crown’s prerogative in the
British Colonies, possessions and dominions. When after the Federal Court’s decision in Yusuf Patel’s case on 12th April 1955, the second Constituent Assembly began to function under the leadership of Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, it, among other laws, within a period of six months, framed the Constitution of 1956 which having been passed on 29th February 1956 received the assent of the Governor-General on 3rd March 1956.
“Though the Constitution of 1956, in its preamble referred to a declaration by the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice, it was in its contents entirely different from what the Quaid-i-Azarn had said in his speech of 11th August 1947 and earlier in an interview with the Reuter’s correspondent, Mr. Doon Campbell. It referred to safeguarding the legitimate interests of minorities whereas according to the Quaid-i-Azam there was to be no distinction between minorities and majorities-a position which had been confirmed by the Liaquat-Nehru Pact of 8th April 1950.
“Though the 1956 Constitution was based, principally, on the pattern of the Government of India Act, in as much as it gave to the Governor-General power to appoint the Prime Minister and to dissolve the assembly, it laid special emphasis on its Islamic feature which were:
1. The State was named as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. The Head of State was to be a Muslim.
3. There was a recital in the preamble of the Constitution, take from the Objectives Resolution, that sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and that the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.
4. That the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam, were to be fully observed.
5. That the Constitution was to be such as would enable the Muslim of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam, as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.
“The statement in the Directive Principles of State policy were that:
(i) unity in the country was to be promoted;
(ii) steps were to be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives in accordance with the Holy Quran and Sunnah;
(iii) the state was to endeavour, as regards the Muslims of Pakistan
a. to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled the understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah;
b. to make the teaching of the Holy Quran compulsory;
c. to promote the unity and the observance of Islamic moral standards;
d. to secure the proper organization of zakat, wakf and mosques;
e. to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor; and
f. to eliminate riba (usury).
“The President was to set up an organization for Islamic Research and Instruction in advanced studies to assist in the reconstruction of Islamic society on a truly Islamic basis. No law was to be enacted which was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and existing laws were to be brought in conformity with such injunctions. Effect was to be given to this provision by the appointment of a Commission to make recommendations:
(i) as to the measures for bringing the existing laws into conformity with the injunctions of Islam;
(ii) as to the stages by which such measures should be brought into effect; and
(iii) to compile in a suitable form for the guidance of National and Provincial Assemblies such injunctions of Islam as could be given legislative effect.
“It is important to notice that the Commission was merely to make recommendations; and it was for the legislature to adopt and make a law in accordance with them. By themselves the recommendations had no legal force.
“A cursory glance at these provisions would show that it is in direct conflict with the secularism of the Quaid-i-Azam. The National Assembly under this Constitution is not sovereign in the sense that it can make any law it considers suitable or necessary during the period of its term. On the termination of its term or its dissolution, people in a fresh election can judge whether a member of the Assembly has come up to the expectation of his electors. If he does not, they can elect another man to represent them in the Assembly. Thus an entirely new Assembly may come into existence. In a democratic form of government sovereignty in the political sense rests in the people. This is precisely what the Quaid-i-Azam meant when he stated to Mr. Doon Campbell that the new state would be a modern democratic state in which sovereignty would rest with the people. In the 1956 Constitution, however, sovereignty rests with Allah and religious restrictions are imposed on the power of the legislature. The Constitution is mostly, almost exclusively, for the Muslims, the minorities not having equal rights with the Muslims’ and being merely entitled to safeguards to protect their legitimate interests. Lastly, there are to be different laws for the Muslim majority and the non-Muslim minority. The name of the country is the Islamic Republic and only a Muslim can be the Head of State, the latter provision being entirely unnecessary, and having been incorporated to show the Islamic character of the State.
“Chaudhri Muhammad Ali’s Constitution was in accordance with the Objectives Resolution but a reversion to basic principles is evident from Ayub Khan’s regime. He (Ayub) emphasized in the preamble Islamic Principles of equality, justice and toleration and in his composition of the Advisory Council there were Ulama of liberal thought and several officials and lawmen who could understand the problems, that arose from time to time.
“The results that follows from the statements of the Ulama may now be stated as follows:
1. that the Quaid-i-Azam’s conception of a secular state and of a Pakistani nation was a satanic conception;
2. that the Muslims of India could not be loyal to or faithful subjects of the Indian Government;
3. that it is Kufr for them to take any jobs and that according to the present Amir of Jamaat-i-Islami if any post in India-is offered to them, it is their duty not to accept it;
4. that the same is the case with Muslims living under non-Muslim governments: in other places of the world, their estimated number at the time of the inquiry being 30 crores;
5. that Pakistan; which as compared with India, is a smaller state is bound to take Indian Muslims in it and has no jurisdiction to refuse to take them; but Pakistan has neither the resources nor land for their settlement;
6. that since the demand for Pakistan was generally supported by the Indian Muslims, they have as much right as Maulana Maududi to come and settle in Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan as early as April 1951 barred their entry for settlement in Pakistan by passing the Pakistan Citizenship Act.
“Thus we left four crores (now 10 crores) of Muslims in India to their fate and according to the ideology of Jamaat-i-Islami they can neither accept any job nor according to unanimous opinion of other divines they can be faithful subjects of India.
“It is pertinent to mention an excerpt from Dinkar Joshi’s book ‘Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah - The Man Behind the Curtain (A biographical novel based on life of the man who reshaped the map of India)’ published by Pentagon Press Dehli from Chapter III, Liaquat-Jinnah Dialogue, at Ziarat - Page # 11 & 12:
“After accepting the position of the Prime Minister, it is my duty to take my Ministerial colleagues and the people of the country into confidence.
“‘Your duty is simply to follow my order. You can accept whatever information Dr. Illahi Baksh gives to you about my health and act accordingly. I do understand why you are so concerned about my health.’
“‘You are misunderstanding, Quaid-e-Azam’, said Liaqat in soft voice.
“‘Perhaps I have misunderstood until now, but now I understand the truth, I am not ignorant of your intention.’
“‘You are unnecessarily getting annoyed, Quaid-e-Azam. Serving the country and its people is my noble intention, Insha Allah.’
“‘The manner in which you are working surrounded by Mullahs and Maulvis, the Pakistan of my dreams cannot be created. My Pakistan can only be modern, not medieval. I have made you the Prime Minister for making Pakistan a modern nation. I feel, my decision was wrong,’ said the Quaid-e-Azam in a loud and angry voice.
“Dr. Illahi Baksh, who sat in front, noticed the excitement in Quaid-e-Azam’s eyes.
“He stood up came close to the bed and said, ‘Sir, now you must take rest, we will take care of the rest’. ‘Mr. Prime Minister. You understand what I am saying’ said the Quaid-e-Azam disregarding the doctor’s advice. ‘I demanded Pakistan in the interest of Hindus and Muslims-living for centuries in this subcontinent. But, the events, of the past one year will lead to permanent suffering of both these communities. You are not moving in the right direction; you are taking Pakistan towards the medieval age to be ruled by the Mullahs and the Maulvis. This is not acceptable to me. Now, enough! I feel like going to Delhi and meeting Jawaharlal to tell that ... ... ...’
“‘Bhaijaan’, Fatima put her palm on the quivering lips and interrupted, ‘Now, you do not say anything ... Your health does not permit you to exert so much,’ and then turning to Liaqat Ali Khan, she said, ‘Prime Minister, I think it would be better if we sit in another room to talk further on this’.
“‘Liaqat looked at Fatima curiously. Nobody could understand what was happening between two. Liaqat got up with faint smile. ... ... ...’

From Jinnah to Zia

A banker by profession, Salim Ansar has a passion for history and historic books. His personal library already boasts a treasure trove of over 7,000 rare and unique books.Every week, we shall take a...

www.thenews.com.pk

This book looks amazing and we can actually understand the thinking of the intellectuals at that time and what they expected Pakistan to be and what it became and whether their expectations took into account the passionate religious feelings of the people of Pakistan. If understanding early Pakistan is the mission then this book can help

@Nilgiri @VCheng @Yankeestani @Joe Shearer @T-123456 @Webslave @Saithan @anmdt @Sinan @Kaptaan

If the quality seems low then i8t has gone through a bunch of compression to make up for the file size

 

[Saithan]

From Jinnah to Zia​

A banker by profession, Salim Ansar has a passion for history and historic books. His personal library already boasts a treasure trove of over 7,000 rare and unique books.
Every week, we shall take a leaf from one such book and treat you to a little taste of history.
BOOK NAME: From Jinnah to Zia
AUTHOR: Muhammad Munir, Chief Justice of Pakistan (r)
PUBLISHER: Vanguard Books Ltd - Lahore
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 1980
The following excerpt has been taken from Pages: 75 — 79

“In this book the learned former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who first articulated and upheld the famous ‘law of necessity’ (whereby hangs a Pakistani tale), asks the most relevant question of the time. Was the new Pakistani state a secular or theological one? How have subsequent leaders and regimes visualized the nature of the state and to what consequent? What is the form and content of the ideology of Pakistan? What is the nature of the relationship between certain political parties, like the Jamaat-i-Islami and Islam and Pakistan? How will recent amendments to the 1973 Constitution affect the body politic of this country? How can the resurgence of Islam be placed in the wider context of geo-political changes in the Middle East and the South Asian region?
THE FIRST CONSTITUTION
“The period from 24th October to 12th April 1955 was a period of crisis created by the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by the Governor-General, Ghulam Muhammad. During this period nothing was said about Islam, the Quran and Sunnah, the compilations of hadis or the exposition of Islamic law by the four imams and the two disciples of Imam Abu Hanifa. The whole attention of the country was riveted on the litigation before the Federal Court which instead of going back to the Quran and Sunnah was going back to England, to the days of Bracton and Lord Mansfield and was engaged in expounding the traditions of democracy, and the crown’s prerogative in the
British Colonies, possessions and dominions. When after the Federal Court’s decision in Yusuf Patel’s case on 12th April 1955, the second Constituent Assembly began to function under the leadership of Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, it, among other laws, within a period of six months, framed the Constitution of 1956 which having been passed on 29th February 1956 received the assent of the Governor-General on 3rd March 1956.
“Though the Constitution of 1956, in its preamble referred to a declaration by the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice, it was in its contents entirely different from what the Quaid-i-Azarn had said in his speech of 11th August 1947 and earlier in an interview with the Reuter’s correspondent, Mr. Doon Campbell. It referred to safeguarding the legitimate interests of minorities whereas according to the Quaid-i-Azam there was to be no distinction between minorities and majorities-a position which had been confirmed by the Liaquat-Nehru Pact of 8th April 1950.
“Though the 1956 Constitution was based, principally, on the pattern of the Government of India Act, in as much as it gave to the Governor-General power to appoint the Prime Minister and to dissolve the assembly, it laid special emphasis on its Islamic feature which were:
1. The State was named as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. The Head of State was to be a Muslim.
3. There was a recital in the preamble of the Constitution, take from the Objectives Resolution, that sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and that the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.
4. That the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam, were to be fully observed.
5. That the Constitution was to be such as would enable the Muslim of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam, as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.
“The statement in the Directive Principles of State policy were that:
(i) unity in the country was to be promoted;
(ii) steps were to be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives in accordance with the Holy Quran and Sunnah;
(iii) the state was to endeavour, as regards the Muslims of Pakistan
a. to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled the understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah;
b. to make the teaching of the Holy Quran compulsory;
c. to promote the unity and the observance of Islamic moral standards;
d. to secure the proper organization of zakat, wakf and mosques;
e. to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor; and
f. to eliminate riba (usury).
“The President was to set up an organization for Islamic Research and Instruction in advanced studies to assist in the reconstruction of Islamic society on a truly Islamic basis. No law was to be enacted which was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and existing laws were to be brought in conformity with such injunctions. Effect was to be given to this provision by the appointment of a Commission to make recommendations:
(i) as to the measures for bringing the existing laws into conformity with the injunctions of Islam;
(ii) as to the stages by which such measures should be brought into effect; and
(iii) to compile in a suitable form for the guidance of National and Provincial Assemblies such injunctions of Islam as could be given legislative effect.
“It is important to notice that the Commission was merely to make recommendations; and it was for the legislature to adopt and make a law in accordance with them. By themselves the recommendations had no legal force.
“A cursory glance at these provisions would show that it is in direct conflict with the secularism of the Quaid-i-Azam. The National Assembly under this Constitution is not sovereign in the sense that it can make any law it considers suitable or necessary during the period of its term. On the termination of its term or its dissolution, people in a fresh election can judge whether a member of the Assembly has come up to the expectation of his electors. If he does not, they can elect another man to represent them in the Assembly. Thus an entirely new Assembly may come into existence. In a democratic form of government sovereignty in the political sense rests in the people. This is precisely what the Quaid-i-Azam meant when he stated to Mr. Doon Campbell that the new state would be a modern democratic state in which sovereignty would rest with the people. In the 1956 Constitution, however, sovereignty rests with Allah and religious restrictions are imposed on the power of the legislature. The Constitution is mostly, almost exclusively, for the Muslims, the minorities not having equal rights with the Muslims’ and being merely entitled to safeguards to protect their legitimate interests. Lastly, there are to be different laws for the Muslim majority and the non-Muslim minority. The name of the country is the Islamic Republic and only a Muslim can be the Head of State, the latter provision being entirely unnecessary, and having been incorporated to show the Islamic character of the State.
“Chaudhri Muhammad Ali’s Constitution was in accordance with the Objectives Resolution but a reversion to basic principles is evident from Ayub Khan’s regime. He (Ayub) emphasized in the preamble Islamic Principles of equality, justice and toleration and in his composition of the Advisory Council there were Ulama of liberal thought and several officials and lawmen who could understand the problems, that arose from time to time.
“The results that follows from the statements of the Ulama may now be stated as follows:
1. that the Quaid-i-Azam’s conception of a secular state and of a Pakistani nation was a satanic conception;
2. that the Muslims of India could not be loyal to or faithful subjects of the Indian Government;
3. that it is Kufr for them to take any jobs and that according to the present Amir of Jamaat-i-Islami if any post in India-is offered to them, it is their duty not to accept it;
4. that the same is the case with Muslims living under non-Muslim governments: in other places of the world, their estimated number at the time of the inquiry being 30 crores;
5. that Pakistan; which as compared with India, is a smaller state is bound to take Indian Muslims in it and has no jurisdiction to refuse to take them; but Pakistan has neither the resources nor land for their settlement;
6. that since the demand for Pakistan was generally supported by the Indian Muslims, they have as much right as Maulana Maududi to come and settle in Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan as early as April 1951 barred their entry for settlement in Pakistan by passing the Pakistan Citizenship Act.
“Thus we left four crores (now 10 crores) of Muslims in India to their fate and according to the ideology of Jamaat-i-Islami they can neither accept any job nor according to unanimous opinion of other divines they can be faithful subjects of India.
“It is pertinent to mention an excerpt from Dinkar Joshi’s book ‘Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah - The Man Behind the Curtain (A biographical novel based on life of the man who reshaped the map of India)’ published by Pentagon Press Dehli from Chapter III, Liaquat-Jinnah Dialogue, at Ziarat - Page # 11 & 12:
“After accepting the position of the Prime Minister, it is my duty to take my Ministerial colleagues and the people of the country into confidence.
“‘Your duty is simply to follow my order. You can accept whatever information Dr. Illahi Baksh gives to you about my health and act accordingly. I do understand why you are so concerned about my health.’
“‘You are misunderstanding, Quaid-e-Azam’, said Liaqat in soft voice.
“‘Perhaps I have misunderstood until now, but now I understand the truth, I am not ignorant of your intention.’
“‘You are unnecessarily getting annoyed, Quaid-e-Azam. Serving the country and its people is my noble intention, Insha Allah.’
“‘The manner in which you are working surrounded by Mullahs and Maulvis, the Pakistan of my dreams cannot be created. My Pakistan can only be modern, not medieval. I have made you the Prime Minister for making Pakistan a modern nation. I feel, my decision was wrong,’ said the Quaid-e-Azam in a loud and angry voice.
“Dr. Illahi Baksh, who sat in front, noticed the excitement in Quaid-e-Azam’s eyes.
“He stood up came close to the bed and said, ‘Sir, now you must take rest, we will take care of the rest’. ‘Mr. Prime Minister. You understand what I am saying’ said the Quaid-e-Azam disregarding the doctor’s advice. ‘I demanded Pakistan in the interest of Hindus and Muslims-living for centuries in this subcontinent. But, the events, of the past one year will lead to permanent suffering of both these communities. You are not moving in the right direction; you are taking Pakistan towards the medieval age to be ruled by the Mullahs and the Maulvis. This is not acceptable to me. Now, enough! I feel like going to Delhi and meeting Jawaharlal to tell that ... ... ...’
“‘Bhaijaan’, Fatima put her palm on the quivering lips and interrupted, ‘Now, you do not say anything ... Your health does not permit you to exert so much,’ and then turning to Liaqat Ali Khan, she said, ‘Prime Minister, I think it would be better if we sit in another room to talk further on this’.
“‘Liaqat looked at Fatima curiously. Nobody could understand what was happening between two. Liaqat got up with faint smile. ... ... ...’

From Jinnah to Zia

A banker by profession, Salim Ansar has a passion for history and historic books. His personal library already boasts a treasure trove of over 7,000 rare and unique books.Every week, we shall take a...

www.thenews.com.pk

This book looks amazing and we can actually understand the thinking of the intellectuals at that time and what they expected Pakistan to be and what it became and whether their expectations took into account the passionate religious feelings of the people of Pakistan. If understanding early Pakistan is the mission then this book can help

@Nilgiri @VCheng @Yankeestani @Joe Shearer @T-123456 @Webslave @Saithan @anmdt @Sinan @Kaptaan

If the quality seems low then i8t has gone through a bunch of compression to make up for the file size

Needless to say, but Mustafa Kemal Atatürk saw this, which is why he pushed for nationalism and secularism. Knowing full and well Islams role in our lives. 100 years later it’s still here.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Needless to say, but Mustafa Kemal Atatürk saw this, which is why he pushed for nationalism and secularism. Knowing full and well Islams role in our lives. 100 years later it’s still here.

The role that man played in the making of Turkey and a modern turkey, cannot be understated and it was to this extent that the entire Muslim world would point to Turkey as evidence that Muslims can function in a modern world and become leaders in the modern era. Such was his impact on Turkey. While Pakistan made grandiose claims of being some form of Islamic fortress, It was Turkey that was the true face of the Islamic world in the modern society and a model muslim who is true to his faith yet is not inconsistent with the modern world and through this became a better fortress.

 

[Saiyan0321]

going back in history a bit. Justice Munir and Moulvi Tamizzuddin

The impact of this case on judicial review and politicization if judiciary was such that Hamid khan in his book constitutional and political history writes

"The judgment of the federal court in tamizzuddin khan case paved the way for future justifications by judges of patently arbitrary, malicious, and capricious acts of the executive on hyper-technical grounds or self-serving theories or concepts".

Elaborating this let me highlight that in 2015 the pakistani supreme court passed a landmark judgment cited PLD SC 2015 401 where the court held that article 239 subsection 5 and 6 do not contain limits on the supreme court. You see this article deals with the power of the parliament to amend any article within the constitution and such could not be brought before any court of pakistan and the supreme court, using hyper-technicality at extreme levels interpreted that the courts mentioned in the constitution does not mean the supreme court since in the constitution, which is to be read continuously and as a whole, mentions the word 'court' for any other court apart from supreme court and whenever it mentions supreme court, it mentioned it as 'supreme court' and since article 239 mentions the word 'court' and not 'supreme court' thus the limitation is not upon the power of judicial review of the supreme court and thus the supreme court could use judicial review on any legislation or amendment of the legislative. You can't get more hyper-technical than this. They are idiots who blame iftikhar on starting judicial review. It began at tamizzuddin as Hamid khan puts it and justice munir used extreme hyper-technicality to throw the entire legislative process of the country to the dustbin that's 1947-1956 all gone. Absolute chaos since he had adjudged not the breaking of assembly but the ability of the Sindh high court on entertaining a writ under section 23-A of the government of India act by staying that it had not received the assent of the governor general and thus could not be law. He did this because of his close relations with the governor general. Justice munir, in that one moment of comraderi pushed pakistan to chaos and he would remain defensive of his judgment, his entire life. The fact that justice munir was one of the top legal minds of pakistan makes it much much worse since he should have known exactly what hell he was opening. 1956 and then 2017 you see a prime minister removed on hyper-technicality and then you see the political parties act sees it's articles removed in 2018 on islamic hyper technicality. With each time the. Court overreached, the spirit of justice munir, one of the best legal minds of pakistan, is seen.

April 22 1960 he gives his reason and defends himself once more as he did so countless times before and after

"The federal court could have said in April 1955 when it dismissed tamizzuddin khan petition that no writ could issue against an established government however illegally constituted the defacto government maybe. That would have meant legal recognition of a revolution. But neither in that case nor in any of the subsequent cases did we say so. The court found that for the action taken by the governor general a legal power in that behalf was to be found in the constitutional instrument itself. If the court had upheld the enforceable writs, I am quite sure there would have chaos in the country and a revolution would have been formally enacted possibly by bloodshed, a far more serious situation than the created by the invalidation of a whole legal system which the new assembly promised by the governor general in his proclamation could have easily validated.
Situations such as these are not for the courts to deal with unless the courts know for certain that their writs would be restored or enforced. But who could say that on 9 Feb, the coercive power of the state was at the service if the court and not with the governor general? And I'd even a doubt arises as to where such power resides, a doubt must arise as to the very efficacy of the law, and the situation would be beyond the pale of judicial process. The writs being enforceable, who was to enforce them and was the court itself in a position. To punish the contempt committed by their disobedience?
The chief court had merely looked into the constitutional instrument and gathering the meaning thereof with the aid of some law reports had issued process, regardless of the events that had happened which made it impossible for the writs to be enforced. At moments like these public law is not to be found in the books, if lies elsewhere viz in the events that have happened. Where the enforcement of the law is opposed by the sovereign power the issue becomes political or military which has fought out by other means and the courts by espousing the cause of one party against the other merely prepare the ground for bloodshed. At a time like this, the very origin of the laws becomes uncertain, the law giving agency being a process of and existing law struggling . But as I have said the court could dismiss the petition for writs on the ground that they were being asked for against a defacto government, if refrained from doing so and decided the case under the law of the land, funding that the cheif court had no jurisdiction to issue it".

The justification in the speech is hardly convincing or even legal. These are excuses and Lies he believed himself. How could this legal mind not know that it was his duty to apply the law and decide correctly regardless of consequences. The issuance of writ is the province of court and not enforcement. That is the job of the executive. Don't bother about whether the executive will do it or not and do your job first! Had chief justice marshal been inhibited by such baseless considerations like these while issuing writs in the landmark judgment of marburg vs madison, then it would have changed the very legal and constitutional history of the USA. It is the boldness of courts that set the law right and when the time came, he failed the power he had been given. But here is the kicker. The entire judgment makes no mention on whether the governor general could dissolve the constituent assembly. 64 pages and nothing mentioned about the problem at hand. All about writs.

 

[Saiyan0321]

ok providing some context

On 16 May 1946, the British Prime Minister Mr Clement Atlee announced the Cabinet Mission Plan’s recommendations regarding the establishment of a Constituent Assembly (elected in July 1946) for undivided India and in those heady days the Muslim League boycotted the Constituent Assembly.

On 3 June 1947, His Majesty’s Government announced specific provisions in relation to establishment of a separate Constituent Assembly for Pakistan which was created under the directions of the Governor-General of India Lord Mountbatten. The Indian Independence Act 1947 (the 1947 Act) was passed and received His Majesty’s assent on 18 July 1947. Quaid-e-Azam (Mr Jinnah) was elected the first President of the Constituent Assembly on 11 August 1947.

The Constituent Assembly met from time to time in relation to producing for the newborn nation a Constitution which would ready before 25 December 1954 – Mr Jinnah’s birthday – so that the Prime Minister of Pakistan (respondent no. 2) could publicly announce it. Following Mr Jinnah’s untimely death, Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan was elected President of the Constituent Assembly on 14 December 1948, a role he held until 24 October 1954.

The petition – pursuant to section 223-A of the Constitution Act for writs in the nature of mandamus, quo warranto or any other appropriate writ – had been filed by the President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, i.e. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan, against the Federation of Pakistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and eight Members of the Central Council of Ministers because on 24 October 1954 the Governor-General (the venal Malik Ghulam Muhammad) of Pakistan proclaimed that:

The Governor-General having considered the Political crisis with which the country is faced, has with regret come to the conclusion that the constitutional machinery has broken down. He therefore has decided to declare a state of emergency throughout Pakistan. The Constituent Assembly as at present constituted has lost the confidence of the people and can no longer function.
The ultimate authority vests in the people who will decide all issues including constitutional issues through their representatives to be elected afresh. Election will be held as early as possible.
Until such time as elections are held, the administration of the country will be carried on by a reconstituted Cabinet. He has called upon the Prime Minister to reform the Cabinet with a view to give the country a vigorous and stable administration. The invitation has been accepted. The security and stability of the country are of paramount importance. All personal, sectional and provincial interests must be subordinated to the Supreme National Interest.

Logically, in his struggle to restore the rule of law to the fledgling “democracy”, the redoubtable Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan sought from the Sind Chief Court a writ of mandamus and quo warranto:

• to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the proclamation and from obstructing the petitioner in the exercise of his functions and duties as President; and
• to determine the validity of the appointment as ministers of respondents 2 to 10.

Claim and Counterclaim

Aggrieved by the dissolution, the Maulvi claimed that the alleged proclamation was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, inoperative and void because: (i) the Governor-General lacked, within the meaning of the 1947 Act or under the Government India Act 1935 (the 1935 Act), the authority to issue the proclamation; (ii) the constitutional machinery had not broken down and the allegation did not empower the alleged proclamation; (iii) the 1947 Act enabled the Constituent Assembly to perform dual functions and it could act as a supreme, sovereign, unfettered Legislature and is also empowered to act as the Federal Legislature for the purposes of the 1935 Act; (iv) only the Assembly could dissolve itself; (v) even in its capacity as the Federal Legislature the Constituent Assembly could not be dissolved by the Governor-General because his power – prior to August 15, 1947 – to dissolve the Federal Legislature in section 19(2)(c) of the 1935 Act was omitted under the Pakistan (Provisional Constitution) Order 1947 with the effect that the Governor-General did not possess any power to dissolve the Federal Legislature; (vi) the Assembly could not be dissolved except by a Resolution assented to by at least two-thirds of the total number of Members of the Assembly; and (vii) the Governor-General had no control over the Constituent Assembly (Constitution) and its acts in that capacity do not require his assent because under the passage of a bill a copy thereof was to be signed by the President and it became law on being published in the Official Gazette of Pakistan under authority of the President.

The respondents counterclaimed that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was perfectly valid and raised seven grounds in support of their case: (i) the Crown has at common law a power to dissolve the Legislature save in far as that power had been superseded or regulated by legislation; (ii) the power to dissolve the Legislature of the Dominion (like Pakistan), like the Constituent Assembly, is a prerogative of the Crown (which absenting express words in an Act of the UK Parliament or a law passed under section 8 of the 1947 Act, the petitioner does not claim that any such Act or law has been passed) and the respondents accordingly claim that the power remains in full force and effect; (iii) all the powers of the Crown at common law vested in the Governor-General; (iv) by rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the Assembly purported to regulate the power of dissolution by providing that it should not be dissolved except by a resolution assented to by at least two-thirds of the total number of members of the Assembly but the respondents claimed that the rule was not a law within the meaning of sections 6 and 8 of the 1947 Act and accordingly that it has no legal force and effect; (v) by reason of section 19(3) of the 1947 Act and section 12 (1) and (2) of the Interpretation Act 1889, the Governor-General of Pakistan had power to revoke or vary the order of the Governor-General of India and to make further orders; (vi) the removal of the power to dissolve the Federal Legislature conferred on the Governor-General of India by section 19(2)(c) of the 1935 Act did not deprive the Governor-General of Pakistan of his power to dissolve the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan under section 5 of the 1947 Act; and (vii) the Court did not enjoy jurisdiction of decide whether the Governor-General had or had not good reasons for exercising the power on the 24 October 1954.

Judgment of Sind Chief Court

The Court was clear from the outset that sections 1 to 6 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 – which underpinned the setting up of the two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan and the division of British India between the two new Dominions – were abdicatory in nature. Notably, by section 6:

the legislatures of the new dominions shall have full power to make laws repugnant to the law of England and any Act of Parliament, while parliament it self abandons its power to assent (in His Majesty’s name) to any law of the legislature of the Dominions and provisions as to disallowance or reservation in any Act shall cease to apply to the new dominions …

Ultimately, the question whether Governor-General had the power to dissolve the Assembly was res integra – i.e. an entirely new or untouched matter – and indeed the respondent Federation mounted its arguments on the strength of the prerogative and upon the statutory power which they argued was conferred by section 19(3)(b) of the 1947 Act (which, of course, was silent on summoning, proroguing or dissolving the Constituent Assembly).

Presided over by George Constantine CJ (as he then was), in an eighty-eight page judgment, the Sind Chief Court unanimously held in Tamizuddin Khan’s favour that the dissolution of the Assembly was incapable of legal justification. In a well-known passage, roundly rejecting the argument that the Governor-General was empowered to hijack the democratic process, the Court took the view that:

It follows, therefore, that the Constituent Assembly’s purported dissolution is a nullity in law, and that both it and the office of its President are still existent. It is common ground that as a result of the proclamation the petitioner has been prevented from performing the functions of his (undoubted public) office. We have the power to issue writs against any Government, and that Government for this purpose includes the Federation of Pakistan appears undeniable.

The word “necessity” appears half a dozen times in the Sind Chief Court’s judgment but it does not appear in linkage with the word “doctrine” – the latter word appears only once and in relation to it the Court said in emphatic terms that:

There can be no doubt of the doctrine of the Privy Council, a Governor has no special privilege like that of the Crown; he must show in any Court that he has, authority by law to do an act, and what is more important for our purpose, he must show not merely that the Crown might do the act, but that he personally had authority to do the act.

The above approach accorded with the leading case of Musgrave v Pulido where the Governor of Jamaica’s plea – that he had acted as Governor in reasonable exercise of his discretion and his actions in connection to the seizure and detention of the “Florence” amounted to an act of state – was rejected by The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (and the Court below) which instead held that the Governor of a colony in ordinary cases was not at parity with the Viceroy, nor can it be assumed that he possesses general sovereign power.

As for “necessity”, as unmistakably amplified in Muhammad Bakhsh J’s judgment which demonstrated great learning, and one with which George Constantine CJ wholeheartedly concurred, the Court reasoned that the Advocate-General’s argument – that under the 1935 Act, the legislature’s life was fixed for five years and therefore a power of dissolution had to be provided for, but now that the life was unlimited there was no necessity to retain that power – was fundamentally flawed and therefore Muhammad Bakhsh J was clear that:

Frankly, I am not able to understand this argument. If you need the statutory authority to dissolve a body whose life is only five years, your need of that power is a number of times greater when the life is unlimited.

For Muhammad Bakhsh J, section 19 of the 1935 Act, remained the key provision of law at the heart of the question of dissolution. In terms, as his Lordship put it, section 19 “thoroughly solves this question.” Explaining that “[t]he real position is so simple”, Muhammad Bakhsh J held that:

It will be seen from above that under the 1935 Act the life of the Federal Legislature was fixed by the statute to be five years unless sooner dissolved by Governor-General under section 19(2)(c). Under the adaptations its life was not limited to any period for the simple reason that the Constituent Assembly set up under section 8 of the [Indian] Independence Act [1947] was also to act as the Federal Legislature under the 1935 Act and the life of the Constituent Assembly was to last till the Constitution was made for Pakistan. Therefore, it could not be dissolved till it had completed the Constitution.

So the Court opined that owing to the fact that the Constituent Assembly’s life was unlimited and because it could not be dissolved until it had performed the functions warranting its creation within the meaning of the 1947 Act, “it was impossible to retain the Governor-General’s power of dissolving the Federal Legislature under section 19(2)(c). Hence this power of dissolution was deliberately withdrawn with the set purpose.”

Unimpressed with the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Federation, the Court set out sections 61(2) and 62(2) of the 1935 Act to establish that although, on the one hand, the Provincial Governor’s prerogative power of dissolution was retained, but equally that, on the other hand, the Governor-General’s power of dissolution was deliberately withdrawn. The Court opined that if section 19(2)(c) of the 1935 Act was omitted because section 5 of the 1947 Act was there to fill the void, then there was no purpose in retaining section 19(2)(a) and (b).

On proper analysis, section 5 of the 1947 Act could potentially enable the summoning and proroguing the Federal Legislature and upon a somewhat probing scrutiny the point only proved that Advocate-General was “reading into section 5, Independence Act what does not really appear there” because “[t]he real position is so simple”. In other words, the Governor-General’s power of dissolution was withdrawn because the Independence Act did not permit him to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.

An imaginative argument advanced on the Federation’s behalf – that section 223-A of the Constitution Act on which the Maulvi relied in filing his petition did not bear the force of law because under section 6 (3) of the 1947 Act it required the Governor-General’s assent – was deprecated by the Court. (As George Constantine CJ put it, the objection regarding assent was novel, and if accepted by the Court it would inevitably upset a consistent course of practice and understanding.)

Observing that the Constituent Assembly had passed no less that forty-six acts none of which ever received the assent of the Governor-General, and that the question of assent of the Governor-General arises under the 1935 Act only, Muhammad Bakhsh J foreclosed the controversy as regards assent by presciently observing that:

Some of these Acts are most important, e.g. the Privy Council (Abolition of Jurisdiction) Act 1950 … the Indian Independence (Amendment) Act. Under the last Act the authority of the Governor-General under section 9, Independence Act, was extended for one year from 31st March 1948. Every one of these Acts is an important and even the Governor-General has himself been acting under those Acts and has been passing several; orders thereunder. Not only this, several people have been convicted and acquitted under these Acts. If every one of these Acts were held invalid for want of assent, the consequences are bound to be disastrous.

In respect of the Privy Council (Abolition of Jurisdiction) Act 1950, the Court observed that whilst the Governor-General had not assented to it, the Privy Council nevertheless remitted all Pakistani matters before it to the Federal Court of Pakistan which accepted the task of “deciding those cases as successors of the Privy Council.” Muhammad Bakhsh J therefore went on to hold that this activity was on all fours with it being declared a law under section 212 of the 1935 Act – i.e. “that the Acts passed by the Constituent Assembly did not require the assent of the Governor-General.” Of course, no case involving the prerogative can be properly decided without considering the important judgment in Attorney-General v de Keyser’s Royal Hotel Limited [1920] UKHL 1, [1920] AC 508 – where their Lordships’ House roundly rejected the government’s right to rely on the prerogative by holding that the prerogative fell into abeyance (i.e. set aside for the life of the statute) once a statute had been enacted and that the prerogative would be resurrected if the statute was repealed. In light of this key authority, Muhammad Bakhsh J held that the House’s approach clarified:

the legal and constitutional position very thoroughly that when the prerogative is merged in the statute, there can be no reserved prerogative … [because] … [w]hen the prerogative which has once been put on the statute is deliberately removed there from, it no longer exists.

Order

In light of the foregoing, holding that the petition did indeed lie under section 223-A of the Constitution Act, and avoiding the “absurd” result (that no High Court in Pakistan could exercise the power of writs against the Federation of Pakistan or the Central Ministers) that so desperately needed to be averted, the Sind Chief Court (Constantine CJ, Vellani, Bakhsh & Bachal JJ) felt that it was appropriate to pass the following Order against the Governor-General:

Per Curiam. – A writ of quo warranto will issue against respondents 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 prohibiting them from exercising the office of Minister and a writ of mandamus will issue and restoring the petitioner to his office as President of the Constituent Assembly by restraining respondents from interfering with his duties and obstructing him in the exercise of his functions. The opponents will bear the cost of the petitioner of this petition. A certificate under section 205, Government of India Act 1935 is hereby given.

Comment

In this robust first instance judgment, the Court did not resile from performing its constitutional role in giving justice to the petitioner. In fact, the Court noted that it was open to every “ordinary citizen” to question executive illegality. Unfortunately, in Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan PLD 1955 FC 240, in the Federal Court, Munir CJ reversed the Sind Chief Court’s judgment and opened the Pandora’s Box of illegality which has haunted Pakistan ever since.

According to Munir CJ (as he then was), section 223-A conferring power on the High Courts to issue writs had not received assent of the Governor-General and the Chief Court could not have issued writ holding the act of the Governor-General as invalid. Therefore, by means of the Emergency Powers Ordinance, 1955 (Ordinance No. IX of 1955) issued under section 42 of the Government of India Act 1935 the Governor-General sought to validate such Acts by indicating his assent with retrospective operation. The Federal Court in Usif Patel’s case PLD 1955 FC 387, however, declared that the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the 1955 Ordinance could not be validated under section 42 of the 1935 Act, nor could retrospective effect be given to them. A noteworthy fact was that the Constituent Assembly had ceased to function, having been already dissolved by the Governor-General by a Proclamation on 24 October, 1954 and no legislature competent to validate these Acts was in existence.

Undeterred, the Governor-General made a Reference to the Federal Court under section 213 of the 1935 Act asking for the Court’s opinion on the question whether there was any provision in the Constitution or any rule of law applicable to the situation by which the Governor-General could, by order or otherwise, declare that all orders made, decisions taken, and other acts done under those laws, should be valid and enforceable and those laws, which could not without danger to the State be removed from the existing legal system, should be treated as part of the law of the land until the question of their validation was determined by the new Constituent Convention.

The answer returned by the Federal Court (by majority) to the Reference by H. E. The Governor General PLD 1955 FC 435 was that in the situation presented by the Reference, the Governor-General has, during the interim period, the power under the common law of civil or state necessity of retrospectively validating the laws listed in the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Ordinance, 1955, and all those laws, until the question of their validation was decided upon by the Constituent Assembly, were, during the aforesaid period, valid and enforceable in the same way as if they had been valid from the date on which they purported to come into force.

Thereafter, as we have seen in a recent post by our learned comrade Dr Reeza Hameed, in The State v Dosso PLD 1958 SC 533, Munir CJ set out to develop the manacles of the doctrine of necessity even further by validating and upholding martial law. But Munir’s judgments were met with resistance and even in Reference by H.E. the Governor General where he decided that the lacuna (i.e. the absence of a competent legislature) created by the requirement of assent in the instant case could only be filled by “necessity”, Cornelius J entered a powerful note of dissent (with which Muhammad Sharif J concurred) to expose a massive weakness in the majority judgment by emphasising that such illegal behaviour “can bring but cold comfort to any protagonist of the autocratic principle against the now universal rule that the will of the people is sovereign”.

Landmark Judgment: Tamizuddin Khan versus Federation of Pakistan

The Governor-General’s power of dissolution was withdrawn because the Independence Act did not permit him to dissolve the Constituent Assembly … Despite its secular and democratic roots, Pakistan i…

pakistanhorizon.wordpress.com

 

[Saiyan0321]

Learning about Jinnah, security landscape and political history of Pakistan​

* We compile a list of five interesting reads for those who want to learn more about Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the economy of Pakistan

The Charismatic Leader


Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan

Second Edition

Sikandar Hayat


This second, revised edition of the book is an updated version, covering the most recent writings on the subject, especially in India, and provides a detailed and systematic analysis of the charismatic leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Indian Muslims during the crisis-ridden decade of 1937-47. Although Jinnah has been studied as a charismatic leader before, no previous study has defined and discussed the concept of charisma so methodically or employed it to analyse his leadership in such a systematic, organised manner. In this sense, the book is unique and distinct and makes an original contribution to the scholarly literature on Jinnah’s political leadership.

Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan



Third Edition

Hamid Khan


This book analyses constitutional development in Pakistan from its inception to present times. It provides a case-by-case account of constitution-making in Pakistan, with the inclusion of all pertinent documentation. Constitutional developments have been explained in the context of social and political events that shaped them. The book focuses on constitutional and political history, and constitutional development concurrently. This third edition is updated to cover the constitutional and political development till 2013.

Pakistan: Alternative Imag(in)ings of the Nation State


Edited by Jürgen Schaflechner, Christina Oesterheld, and Ayesha Asif

This edited volume combines academic and journalistic writings on Pakistan’s literature, non-Muslim life-worlds, and popular culture. The book brings together national and international authors from fields of literary studies, anthropology, and cultural studies to critique solidified imaginings of the nation state.

The Faltering State


Pakistan’s Internal Security Landscape

Tariq Khosa

The book addresses the various governance and internal security issues in Pakistan. The country’s internal security fault-lines revolve around the weakening of the state, rise of militancy and violence, terrorism, insurgency, poor governance, corruption, lawlessness, broken criminal justice system, disregard for human rights, control of military over civilian affairs, weak democratic institutions, lack of political will to reform institutions, and, above all, a crisis of leadership. The book is an outcome of the author’s experiences acquired through his 40-year career in law enforcement.

View attachment 9341


Pakistan: The Economy of an Elitist State

Second Edition

Ishrat Husain

This insightful analysis into the prevailing economic situation in Pakistan has three distinguishing features. It is an exhaustive, analytical history of economic development in Pakistan during the last seventy years; it provides an explanation of Pakistan’s economic performance in the political context, and compares it with other South Asian countries and with East Asia; it outlines for Pakistan an agenda of economic and social reforms based on a model of shared growth to see the country into the twenty-first century.

Learning about Jinnah, security landscape and political history of Pakistan - Daily Times

The Charismatic Leader Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan Second Edition Sikandar Hayat This second, revised edition of the book is an updated version, covering the most recent writings on the subject, especially in India, and provides a detailed and systematic...

dailytimes.com.pk

 

[Saiyan0321]

on the day of Jinnah's birthday, to whom we owe much, our very lives and existence, let us get to know him a bit more.

I will start with the recent work from Yaseer Latif Hamdani "Jinnah; A Life" which has received some good reviews and he does a good job of telling the history of the great man.

No biography of Mahomed Ali Jinnah Pakistan s Quaid-e-Azam has been true to the man who described himself as plain Mr Jinnah . Yasser Latif Hamdani s book fills that void. The author puts together an account of Jinnah s life with affection, without neglecting key facts and by including commonly repeated distortions. Jinnah s greatness shines through [in this book] while maintaining the humanity of his character
Husain Haqqani, Former Pakistan Ambassador to the US, author of Reimagining Pakistan

At last a biography of Jinnah that does not separate his personal life from the political
--Sheela Reddy, author of Mr and Mrs Jinnah: The Marriage that Shook Indi

 

[Saiyan0321]

Next ofcourse is the much acclaimed and highly recommended, that would inspire many people to understand Jinnah, is the

The Sole Spokesman:​

Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal​

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

The dropbox contains the file along with some other files. There are some good guys out there that like to share their knowledge. the link comes from CSS Forum

Link to Download e-Books - CSS Forums

Some of the recommended e-books along with other useful ones are available for download at this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/slwjd0tno...9Oz63R-0a?dl=0 The books available are as follows: 1. A

www.cssforum.com.pk

 

[Saiyan0321]

the books available in the above

The books available are as follows:
1. A Short History of Muslim Rule in India by Ishwari Prasad
2. Pakistan, A Modern History by Ian Talbot
3. Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia by Ayesha Jalal
4. The Sole Spokesman by Ayesha Jalal
5. The Idea of Pakistan by Stephen P. Cohen
6. The Future of Pakistan by Stephen P. Cohen
7. India, Emerging Power by Stephen P. Cohen
8. Pakistan, A Hard Country by Anatol Lieven
9. Constitution Making Dilemmas in Pakistan (1955) by G.W. Choudhry
10. Pakistan at the Croscurrent of History by Lawrence Ziring
11. Indus Waters Treaty (1960) Original Text
12. Kashmir in Conflict, India Pakistan and the Unending War by Victoria Schofield
13. The India Pakistan Military Standoff by Zachary S. Davis

 

[Saiyan0321]

Next ofcourse is , when we are discussing about books on Jinnah it cant be ignored, the amazing book by

Jinnah of Pakistan By Wolpert Stanley​

One of the best biographies you would have the pleasure of reading and from him is the most famous quote about jinnah

“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”

Stanley Wolpert These are the opening lines of the preface of Stanley Wolpert’s book, “Jinnah of Pakistan” and serves to entice you to read an extremely thorough, comprehensive and detailed study about one of the most pragmatic and charismatic leaders of South Asia, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Stanley Wolpert is an American academic who is considered to be one of the world’s foremost authorities on the political history of modern South Asia.

Jinnah of Pakistan By Wolpert Stanley

“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three.” Stanley Wolpert These are the opening lines of the preface of Stanley Wolpert’s book, “Jinnah of...

thecsspoint.com

Download link is in the above

Both the book by Stanley and Ayesha are a must read if you are going for any exam by FPSC and PPSC especially the Civil Services Exam

 

[Saiyan0321]

I would have attached them here but the files are large and there is a 4mb limit here

 

[Saiyan0321]

But who was the first guy to write on this great man that is loved in Pakistan as the founding father of the country but is hated in India as the man that broke the country. The first man to start the ball rolling in the subject that is jinnah, which would then see so many works get published.

That man is hector bolitho

some reviews of his work

‘Mr Bolitho has written a most readable and vivid sketch, in his familiar style, of the character and career of the creator of Pakistan. He has collected anecdotes and assessments from a large number of Mr Jinnah’s colleagues and acquaintances, and he has strung them together very skilfully upon an outline of the domestic events of Mr Jinnah’s life and of the great political events in which he played so dominant a part.’
—Tablet, 5 February 1955

‘In his Jinnah Hector Bolitho has written his best book for many years—a direct, unpretentious biography of the man whose single and unswerving determination primarily created Pakistan and who…accepted the sacrifices entailed without demur.’
—Daily Telegraph, 26 November 1954

‘By the test of sheer achievement, Mohammed Ali Jinnah must be reckoned as one of the most dynamic and successful political leaders thrown up by the present century. It has fallen to Mr Bolitho to write the first full-scale biography of this remarkable man, and he has done it very successfully.’ —The Economist, 4 January 1955 ‘He has taken the greatest care to check his facts, and to take the opinions at first hand of Jinnah’s contemporaries. The result is a fascinating biography packed with incident and anecdote, which does not forget the magnitude and the growth of Jinnah—a biography that is eminently readable.’
—Nottingham Journal, 1 February 195

 

[Saiyan0321]

@Nilgiri @Yankeestani @Kaptaan @T-123456 @Waz @Saithan @Webslave @anmdt @Joe Shearer @VCheng @Test7 @Indos @Kartal1 @Combat-Master @Madokafc and so many others

should be enough for the study on the man and i could tell you stuff about him and others can tell you stuff about him but nothing and i mean nothing comes even close then to read a subject and forming an opinion on your own. It was the same for attaturk where some were saying that he is the greatest leader ever whereas other more, religious types were saying that he betrayed Islam. one must form his own opinion by studying the subject

 

[Saiyan0321]

when we discuss Pakistan's legisltative and legal history, we cannot ignore one major incident in the country and that was the introduction of the second amendment and the presidential ordinance 24 1985 which would change the very nature of a populace in Pakistan.

The second amendment didn't amend article 20 but amended article 106 and 260. Article 260 dealt with definitions and here the Muslims was first defined. This will be a long post and I am typing whilst traveling to Lahore so forgive some mistakes.

Article 260 of definition

"
(3) In the Constitution and all enactments and other legal instruments, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,—

(a) “Muslim” means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets and does not believe in, or recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (peace be upon him); and

(b) “non-Muslim” means a person who is not a Muslim and includes a person belonging to the Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Budhhist or Parsi community, a person of the Quadiani Group or the Lahori Group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), or a Bahai, and a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes.]"

First contention on whether a state has to define what a Muslims is?

States that define the religion of the state, have to define that religion and the membership of that religion. What is religion of state? What is it's purpose? It is the very statement that the state shall now define and interpret religion and when it takes upon itself the task of interpreting religion then it must define what kind of religion it is and what kind of muslim it is and this question was asked from the inception of pakistan and whilst we can argue that the more secular bureaucracy and politicians were fighting the issue however it was a losing battle. Eventually the state being islamic would end up defining religion since you cannot not define what a muslim is and still get to call yourself islamic republic and sole interpretator of islam. We are not the only ones that faced this question. Indonesia and egypt faced similar problems and alot of it could stem from ahmedis definitions.

Thus pakistan, after vigorous debates was forced to define what a muslim is since it was interpreting islam. What was the domain of academic study became the legal battle of courts and states and politicians and tell me what definition would a state running on democracy of majority rule would implement? Obviously the definition of the majority which was exactly what it did however you can't stop there. You can't be the interpretator of islam and not define what kind of muslim you are. What sect? Well the courts couldn't force a set so they held that all pakistani citizens shall be deemed to be sunni unless he so expresses otherwise. For example if my personal law is to be implemented then the court will go with sunni law unless I tell the court that I am of shia fiqh. Then came the problem of what school. Hanafi is the majority school but you have other schools as well. State had to interpret this as well so it is now deemed that all citizens are of sunni hanafi faith unless they express so otherwise. So if a person is found dead and nobody knows whether he was shia or sunni then his personal law would be deemed sunni hanafi. This forced interpretation now forces it's citizens to pick a sect or school and they cannot say that I don't want to be part of any sect or school or have my own school. No you will pick a sect and it's school and you will like it because that is what a state does. It enforces it whereas for 1400 years it was the pluralism of islam that made it wonderful where the interpretation was with academics who could interpret a declare could not enforce. So this is very important to understand.


So now we have the amendment but did the amendment create the air that is now today. It couldn't actually. There was still a loophole. A muslim was defined but what was a non-muslim? The ahmedi's were not in accordance to the definition of islam but then what were they? And what about their religious symbols?

Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Article 20 states that

Subject to law, public order and morality-

every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and
every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.

It didn't stop the ahmedis the second amendment since they could still enter quotas of Muslims or apply for muslim positions which required only the kalma. The muslim was defined but not the ahmedis nor the non-muslim

The spirited defence of the Ahmadiyya community is well illustrated in the case of Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri v. The State of West Pakistan PLD 1969 Lahore 289 where it was held that Ahmadis as citizens of Pakistan were guaranteed by the Constitution the same freedom to profess and proclaim their religion as any other citizen of Pakistan and that Ahmadis are within the fold of Islam. The Court furthermore held the legal process as being incapable of determining who is a Muslim holding that there is an "absence of any legal right [...] to have this abstract question determined by any right legal process , unless it is somehow linked with any right to property or right to an office [...] [at p. 307]." The Court asserted that the true Islamic precepts and injunctions of Islam as manifested in the Holy Quran guarantee freedom of religion in clear mandatory terms and concluded that the persecutions of Ahmadis "are sad instances of religious persecution against which human conscience must revolt, if any decency is left in human affairs" [at p. 308].

The change of the legal status of Ahmadis from Muslims to a non-Islamic religious minority was achieved by an amendment to Article 260 of the Constitution, which defines terms used in the Constitution. The Constitution (Second Amendment) Act, 1974 added to these definitions a new clause 3 which provided that:

A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last of the Prophets or who claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (Peace be upon him), or recognises such claimant as a prophet or a religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or the law.

The new clause was clearly aimed at Ahmadis, since it was alleged that Ahmadis regard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of their religious movement, as a Prophet. The legal effect of the re-definition of Ahmadis as non-Muslims, was, however, limited

Their religious symbols remained and thus very soon began the battle for religious symbols.

In Abdur Rahman Mobashir v. Amir Ali Shah PLD 1978 Lahore 113 the High Court of Lahore decided that no permanent injunction could be granted to bar Ahmadis from continuing to perform religious practices associated, as it was alleged by the petitioners, exclusively with Islam as defined by the majority Sunni community. The Court held that civil law could only be used to protect rights of a legal character and explained that religious practices or religious terms could never constitute a proprietary right stating that 'a suit regarding such matter is only competent if it involves dispute about right to property or office'[at p. 143]. The Lahore High Court furthermore held that religious terms do not fall within the domain of intellectual property law either, holding that: "Rights in trademarks or copyrights are matters which are the concern of the statutory law. There is no positive law investing the plaintiffs with any such right to debar the defendants [i.e. the Ahmdaiyya community] from freedom of conscience, worship, or from calling their places of worship by any name they like"[at p. 139].

The Court further held that neither public nuisance law nor any direct application of Islamic law based on the equitable jurisdiction of "equity, justice and good conscience" could be used so as to prevent Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims.

So at this point the ahmedis are still able to describe themselves as Muslims and use muslim symbols. They were still able to blend in and this needed to be combated if the majority muslim democratic state had to interpret islam.

the definition of non-Muslims as contained in Article 260 by inter alia adding a new sub-clause (b) which states that "'non-Muslim' means a person who is not a Muslim and in includes a person belonging to the Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Parsi community, a person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name), or a Bahai, and a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes."

The difficulties in using the ordinary civil law to curb the religious practices of the Ahmadiyya community was overcome by resorting to the area of criminal law: for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims was now elevated to a criminal offence. The Ordinance XX of 1984 provides that:

298B. Misuses of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places.

Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, –
refers to, or addresses, any person, other then a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as 'Ameer-ul-Mumineen', 'Khalifa-tul-Mumineen', 'Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen, 'Sahabii' or 'Razi Allah Anho';
refers to, or adresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as 'Ummul-Mumineen';
refers to, or adresses, any person, other than a member of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as Ahle-bait; or
refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as 'Masjid'; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as 'Azan', or recites 'Azan' as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
298C. Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith.– Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name), who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Legal representatives of the Ahmadiyya community initially tried to challenge the validity of the Ordinance before the Federal Shariat Court. This Court has the power to invalidate certain laws, including criminal laws, if they are in the opinion of the court repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. In the case of Mujibur Rehman v. The Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1985 FSC 8 the Federal Shariat Court upheld the validity of the Ordinance arguing that Ahmadis were not Muslims according to the tenets of Islam and that therefore any restrictions imposed on the Ahmadis's claim to be Muslims would not be repugnant to Islam as laid down in Quran and Sunnah.

The constitutional challenge of the Ordinance before the Supreme Court was therefore the last resort for the Ahmadiyya community to regain their right to freely practice their religion. It should be noted that Ordinance XX of 1984 has been vigorously enforced in Pakistan: Up to 1992 a total of 1790 criminal cases had been filed under the Ordinance XX of 1984 and were pending before the courts.

II. The Decision in Zaheer-ud-din v. The State
The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zaheer-ud-din v. The State rejected by a majority decision of four to one the contention that the Ordinance XX of 1984 was violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

i. The Minority Judgement
The minority judgement delivered by Shafiur Rahman held that the restrictions imposed on the Ahmadiyya community on the use of the terms 'Azan', meaning the call for prayer, and 'Masjid', the Urdu term used to denote a place of worship, were unconstitutional since they formed part of the Ahmadi religion having been used by them for a long time:

Historically this [i.e. the naming of the place of worship by the Ahmadis as 'Masjid' and calling of 'Azan'] has been shown in the Lahore High Court case [PLD 1978 Lahore 113, quoted above] to be a tenet or a practice of Ahmadis or Quadianis not of recent origin or device and adopted not with a view to annoy or outrage the feelings and sentiments of non-Ahmadis and non-Quadianis. Being an essential element of their faith and not being offensive per se prohibition on the use of these by them and making it an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine violates the Fundamental Right of religious freedom of professing, practising and propagating and of [the] Fundamental Right of equality inasmuch as only Quadianis or Ahmadis are prevented from doing so and not other religious minorities[at p. 1747].

Furthermore, he held that the restriction on the Ahmadi's right to propagate or to preach their religion, contained in section 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code as amended by the Ordinance, to be violative of the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Shafiur Rahman concluded his argument by asserting that the wearing of badges by members of the Ahmadiyya community carrying religious messages pertaining to Islam would not constitute a criminal offence since "for ascertaining its peculiar meaning and effect one has to reach the inner recesses of the mind of the man wearing or using it and to his belief for making it an offence." This would be beyond the scope of the law and "in any case it will infringe directly the religious freedom guaranteed and enjoyed by the citizens under the Constitution, where mere belief unattended by objectionable conduct cannot be objected to" [at p. 1749].

ii. The Majority Judgement
The majority judgement, delivered by Abdul Quadeer Chaudhary did not follow Shafiur Rahman's liberal approach and dismissed the appeals. The decision, discussed in more detail below, was based on the following arguments:

1. Certain religious terms are peculiar to Islam. In analogy with the law on trademarks and copyrights these terms can be protected by the state from being used by other religious communities.

2. An Islamic state is under an obligation to protect Islam. In order to do this, it can prevent religious communities from claiming to be Muslims. It follows that Ahmadis are only allowed to use religious symbols and terms which are not already being used in connection with Islam.

3. The right of freedom of religion extends only to the integral and essential parts of a religion. It is up to the Courts to determine the nature of these integral and essential elements of a religion. However, even these essential elements, which are protected by constitutionnally guaranteed right to freedom of religion can be restricted if their exercise leads to law and order problems.

4. The fundamental right to freedom of religion together with all other fundamental rights is subject to the limits imposed by Islamic law since Islamic is the positive law of the land.

Chaudhary based the entire discussion on intellectual property right and he used Indian law to base his assumption on.

In a list of examples Chaudhary quotes inter alia Indian commercial law stating that:

'Section 20 of the Indian Company Law also lays down that no company shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Central Government is undesirable and that a name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered, will be deemed to be undesirable by the Indian Government. The Indian Constitution has similar Fundamental Rights as ours but we have not seen a single decision of any Court there, declaring the restriction violative of these rights.' [at p.1752]

He continues this line of argument by proceeding to examine the law on trademarks in India and Pakistan arguing that:

'It is thus clear that intentionally using trade names, trade marks, property marks or descriptions of others in order to make believe others that they belong to the user thereof amounts to an offence and not only the perpetrator can be imprisoned and fined but damages can be recovered and injunction to restrain him issued. This is true of goods of even very small value. For example, the Coca Cola Company will not permit anyone to sell, even a few ounces of his own product in his own bottles or other receptacles, marked Coca Cola, [...].Further, it is a criminal offence carrying sentences of imprisonment and also fine. The principles involved are: do not deceive and do not violate the property rights of others. [at p. 1754]

Chaudhary then extends his findings to the protection of Islamic religious terms in an Islamic state holding that:

It must be appreciated that in this part of the world, faith is still the most precious thing to a Muslim believer, and he will not tolerate a Government which is not prepared to save him of such deceptions or forgeries.[...] If a religious community insists on deception as its fundamental right and wants assistance of Courts doing the same, then God help it. [at p. 1754]

And then he used your judgments by analyzing two leading Indian decisions on freedom of religion, Commissioner H.R.E Air 1954 SC 282 and Durgah Committee AIR 1961 SC 1402, which establish the principle that

[..]though religious practices are protected by the term 'freedom of religion' yet only such practices are so covered as are integral and essential part of the religion. [...] it is for the Courts to determine whether a particular practice constitutes [an] essential part of the religion or not. [at p. 1762]

Secondly, he states that the right to freedom of religion can be restricted not only in the interest of the maintenance of law and order but also by the limits on the scope of all constitutionnally guaranteed fundamental rights imposed by the positive law of the land, i.e. Islamic law.


Above is not a religious discussion but the history of Pakistan. Pakistan did do all that and we can see how the process went. There are a few books on how this was done, which i shall attach later.

The battle for intellectual rights of a religion could not start without declaring them non-muslim. They had to be declared as such specifically and when states have to interpret islam, it's a rail road that can't and won't stop. I agree with all that pakistan is not the lone example but let me also clarify that the islamic world had not seen an islamic state based on democratic principles of the majority. The caliphs and king's were dictators. Sovereign authorities so they could accommodate anybody they wanted and could easily build temples or donate to the non-muslim or even fight for the non-muslim i.e the crusader agreements between crusader states and muslim states.

With pakistan came the first time the majoritarian government which depended on the approval of the masses, acting as the sole interpretator of islam with a created clergy. Three factors that didn't exist before.

The say of the people

State being the interpretator of islam

And a clergy that was not happy with state being the sole interpretator or any interpretator for that matter.

An inevitable step that would have happened even with a dictator however dictators tend to keep the question away thanks to them having
.the gun

And not being answerable to the people.

The true republic of pakistan came to be in 1973 with an elected government bringing forth a constitution of the people and immediately they knew that they had to answer the islamic question that majority felt most precious about. We can argue that people weren't on the streets for it but by doing so, the state could ride on the passions of the people and gain political power. There is a reason madaudi said that out of 1000 999 don't known islam thus democracy can't work here because eventually a state with so many islamic roots would fall down the pit of islam and with no proper experience nor training.
The state cannot be of two types of religion just like an individual can't be shia and sunni. The state is slowly being forced to pick a sect and school and it is sunni hanafi. This is the evolution of a religious state.

 

[Nilgiri]

should be enough for the study on the man and i could tell you stuff about him and others can tell you stuff about him but nothing and i mean nothing comes even close then to read a subject and forming an opinion on your own.

Brother, I am not sure if this is best thread for me to explore my answer to this (w.r.t Jinnah specifically).

If you (or another mod etc) feel its too heavy/weighty...we can move it to a new thread in say hobby section under something like "Nilgiri philosophy/musings etc"...for maybe all my weighty replies in general for topics at this forum that come from time to time, because it has been many years and moments of deep musing/thought by me, combined with authors and archives I have read on such issues.

Let me first start by quoting @Joe Shearer take on the developments at large of that time (interested readers can hit the arrow to see the larger context of convo there)...that probably shook something inside of me (in sad nostalgic way) at that moment than he knew, but I did not really care to express myself on it back then:

It had been thought through; one side did not want to accept the consequences of their non-involvement/late-stage involvement, and sought to convert it into something that they, in their then state of mind, thought more equitable than the stark mechanism of the transfer of power.

Let me say in younger different years, I have read my fair share on Jinnah and all the history of that era.

I have had more than my fill on it...but given the overarching nature of the consequences today...I am also resigned that Joe, you and other worthies (both online and outside closer to me) bringing up such subject too.

i.e People I admire and respect, lighting the torch in that dark room from time to time...in ways known only to me. So I might as well try air out a few thoughts I have...before I let them cobweb up for good...for reasons more personal to me, I have little sustained interest to remember them as boldly as I once did.

I always ask people cognisant on this era on what is the exact breadth, depth and timing that Jinnah "took" on the British and help form mass movements/national cohesion against them.

The exact nature of the struggle, striving, facing prison time etc...within the limits of one that wants to be a well disciplined but commited revolutionary against injustice....in this case so those that were perpetrating such were shown our great Hindustani ethos and resolve to them being a long overstaying foreign oppressor... that is to be evicted from a place they have no reason being and doing what they were.

So far I have not found a good enough answer to hold him (jinnah) in a good light on it...and I doubt I ever will...and if anything can change it.

I am of course biased (who isn't?), but I feel it is unsettling to anyone if they look at him with as neutral eyes and enough context and understanding as possible.

I personally will always prefer and deeply respect the honest principled action of Gandhi.

As much as we can then debate those principles, he followed them honestly in a way it is near impossible to find another.... and it spurred a prolonged national stirring and consequential awakening like no other in history too.

In my near-final analysis, Gandhi was acting in good faith of Hindustan needing dignity, liberation, self-determination and national unity and pretty much start to finish once he developed his vision and platform.

It was and he was inevitably blemished with errors and faults, but it was and he was an overall edifice and example for eternity.

The identity was Hindustani nationalism, thats it...no other identity need colour and taint that for a very important reason (and this is what sub-identitarians, back then and today, don't grasp honestly and never will.

Jinnah and concoction of using religious faith (turning against many of his own asserted initial principles) convinced himself on a great folly to make some partitioned majoritarian setup on a sub-identity of Hindustan....and the region, world and humanity pays for it with great consequence.

This is why even though I may admire some parts of Jinnah's character, story and initial spirit... I can never like him as a whole or even close to that... given his mid stream change and final (deeply flawed) logic, conclusion and consequence of what he did.

I care not to much further explore what I exactly mean by "not liking"...especially what was and since has been wrought by this bubbled, elitist, dissonant idealism as to what is actually a worthy identity for national formation.

All the more given the state and predicament of the populace at the time (and today) that ought to be blindingly obvious to anyone with power and influence if they are well reasoned and honest (the two features that are of the ONLY consequence to me for any leader or person in general)

Filling society with this kind of irrational unprincipled basis that he and others did, given society having grossly imperfect temperament, condition and education (then and now) is unforgivable to me.

Ultimately it meant more spawning and establishment of properly abominable demagogues (who had far fewer redeeming qualities than Jinnah, and its obvious he did not account for this) and the entrenched negative displacement narrative that has led to half the country leaving it (with completely unnecessary further bloodshed of foulest kind) and now the remaining half atrophying as only @VCheng can best summarise with input and output design.

All because its elitists and demagogues needing to double down on this flawed identity complex that has taken new ungainly downstream proportions, with enough of the masses blindly believing them (then and now) or simply doing the "go along to get along" thing with them to earn their bread in some relative peace.

But the fact this extremely flawed narrative and all flawed counter-narratives (of which now India has it's particular supposedly newer toxic variant metastasizing) essentially seem to be the ones that have won and are winning more and more minds....seemingly again reminding us (or at least me) that it is the darkest parts of human nature that are most easily accessible to too many.

It is deeply repulsive to me to contemplate more than needed these days.

I prefer to be a small boat on surface on my merry way and not think of these undercurrents anymore.

I have long studied the history and psyche behind this globally when I had the interest and time for it, probably more than anyone else in this forum, with the likely exception of Joe.

It has scarred me for life...but also make me hold and appreciate that which is good and beautiful, ordered and rational in our species and in our world even more closer. But that does not sit well as sufficient silver lining for reasons unknown to me (maybe its because I get older and the shine on certain things I took for granted wears off)

Anyway to me, ultimately for this subcontinent, large portion of this dark undercurrent (at the levels of consequence in the modern more "enlightened" era i.e leadership) are traced back to Jinnah (and this late-stream involvement joe refers to, of which he was the spearhead), however well meaning he may or may not have been is known only to him and Him in the end.

To me, the way he went about doing what he did (stoking and doubling down on this psyche and narrative) while the congress leadership went full out in "quit India" against British during WW2 and got imprisoned/house arrested for it in stretches and thus were largely out of the picture to counter it in a crucial stretch of years....leaves a very unsettling thing to dwell on for me.

It reeks of an unprincipled unfair approach in bad faith. By the time they were out and about again, it was too late...the damage and I suppose destiny had set in.

It is subject I find sordid, it just puts me in a foul mood to think on it... as to the "could have beens" given what has now entrenched at great consequence and cost...further exacerbated by millions living in denial, ignorance or even some base, degenerate and perverse enjoyment at it.

I for one don't see any way out of it either, it now has gravity all on its own, just like the gravity I see in other regions of the world for matters the same and different.

All in just a tiny drop of time, just a few cohorts and fewer generations...demeaning all the great hopes and potential of their much longer lineage and heritage. That's all it takes to irreparably ruin all these lives, and so few (I find) are sufficiently attuned to that...not just in subcontinent, but the entire world.

It just saps me and crushes me, things like this (it being Christmas time and all)...the words, the reality vs hope.

For example, every word in the conclusion (at 43 minute mark to the very end of it though whole feature worth watching) feels like a cold, hard stone thrown in my face:

Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

I enjoyed watching this one....that era when transition to rockets over guns started given the advantages. With further development of sensoring and guidance, we now take such things for granted on modern warships.....but back then the basic innovations and doctrines had to be explored and...

defencehub.live

...and then I think in that time frame of that war, our boys and men that went to fight it for "king and country" that was not their own...did so for various reasons but often in the hope this would finally push a recognition by that "King and country" that we were equals deserving our political rights and ultimate right to express it as we chose to and work towards that goal...ready to sacrifice life if needed.

Those boys and men, those of which came from your neck of the woods (eg. Punjab regiments) and mine (eg. Madras Sappers), your very own forefathers and mine (And really not too long ago either).... would have known the names Hindustan, India and Bharat (while fighting and dieing in those foreign lands and foreign wars for that foreign King)....but not Pakistan. How is this circle squared by their descendants in all manner of ways? It takes it toll on lot of people thinking and action without them even realising it...the psyche deep down is a strange thing in our species.

So to me it is clear to see what happened and who the main agents were in perpetrating and exploiting some chosen rift of their fancy...going against their better, honest earlier judgement.

Easy to cleave, hard to build I suppose...no surprise the worst things we do involve the former and the best things we do involve the latter.

But the deep human spirit, our very souls know which one is easy and which is hard given we all deeply see a higher purpose in making effort for order, the order we seem to gleam in the universe around us and above us.

Thus I grow increasingly incensed when I see downstream effect of brother wars, knowing most people deep down must surely recognise and know this moral truth.

We were (and are) clearly brothers in the subcontinent...but all these hearts and minds poisoned against this is too much for me to dwell on anymore, especially at the 1st principles roots I see that did the most on creating this.

Simply I have been born into this poison, I have seen it all in my family too, the very people I love the most on this 3rd rock from the sun. I feel I likely only gained larger truth (on matters such as this) by distancing from all that.

I do not know whether to be happy or sad in doing that (distancing + reflection) nowadays. Maybe it was just better to stay "simpler" like them and less aware, keep certain things as black and white as possible...who knows.

For the more I push into the realm of complete honest morality, I just see more and more human failure in reality all around me.

It grinds and hurts my soul...I have to balance that now...I am not so young, ambitious and reckless like before, some reason my mind feels heavier now and needs to simply lose deadweight I feel is dragging it down.

I simply realise maybe 1 out of 100 people do or even attempt this good faith approach to some higher endeavour...so 99% of time I'm stuck like a sucker spouting what seems foolish platitudes and get left with short end of the stick....having pleased no one and maybe achieved worse in the end given everyone absolutely loves their echo chambers these days if they are even capable of seeing what those are in first place.

So in our region, the brother wars I see are the biggest stain...

Saare Jahan Se Accha, Hindositan Hamara...

Who wrote those words tells the story in how the brother war originates, spreads, establishes and lingers...

A most sad tragedy, given what the 1st partition entailed on innocent lives, what the 2nd partition in 1971 entailed again on innocent lives...and the entrenched emboldened narratives the brothers have formed on each other now that are merely taken to be default fact because its feels good and thus a number of (clear) deepest mistakes need justification or denial.

All when it could have been a pure crystallized focus on sons of the soil, the salt of the earth of a great land and civilisation, getting rid of oppressor from half the world away that had no right to be there...and then build bridges across whatever issues we have as Hindustanis.

What should have been the greatest triumph of unity, dignity and destiny... ended up being what we have now, founded on fears and lies (of a striking few) being stoked to grow, consume and persist...by simply knowing and exploiting (overtly or subconciously) that which is "downhill" vs "uphill" when it comes to human nature.

May God have mercy on our sins...may he punish every evil-doer and redeem every innocent lost..and judge all in-between.

All that does not happen down here by our free-will given our great egos we nurture and dark Babel towers we build at whatever cost to our fellow man

So much so that a brother will turn on a brother like this overnight, like Cain on Abel....after all that they have both been through....and it seems to be a rule rather than exception looking across time and space.

I have no words to describe this properly! I don't think any words exist at all for it. This only feels like a few drops of what lies in my heart on this predicament I see in mankind.

Only He knows best, only He knows the purpose of it all...I have to believe in this...that there is an absolute truth and justice somewhere....far away from the hands of men and mankind (man is not kind at all)....but a great reckoning for what they do with those hands with the precious little time allotted to them.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Brother, I am not sure if this is best thread for me to explore my answer to this (w.r.t Jinnah specifically).

If you (or another mod etc) feel its too heavy/weighty...we can move it to a new thread in say hobby section under something like "Nilgiri philosophy/musings etc"...for maybe all my weighty replies in general for topics at this forum that come from time to time, because it has been many years and moments of deep musing/thought by me, combined with authors and archives I have read on such issues.

Let me first start by quoting @Joe Shearer take on the developments at large of that time (interested readers can hit the arrow to see the larger context of convo there)...that probably shook something inside of me (in sad nostalgic way) at that moment than he knew, but I did not really care to express myself on it back then:



Let me say in younger different years, I have read my fair share on Jinnah and all the history of that era.

I have had more than my fill on it...but given the overarching nature of the consequences today...I am also resigned that Joe, you and other worthies (both online and outside closer to me) bringing up such subject too.

i.e People I admire and respect, lighting the torch in that dark room from time to time...in ways known only to me. So I might as well try air out a few thoughts I have...before I let them cobweb up for good...for reasons more personal to me, I have little sustained interest to remember them as boldly as I once did.

I always ask people cognisant on this era on what is the exact breadth, depth and timing that Jinnah "took" on the British and help form mass movements/national cohesion against them.

The exact nature of the struggle, striving, facing prison time etc...within the limits of one that wants to be a well disciplined but commited revolutionary against injustice....in this case so those that were perpetrating such were shown our great Hindustani ethos and resolve to them being a long overstaying foreign oppressor... that is to be evicted from a place they have no reason being and doing what they were.

So far I have not found a good enough answer to hold him (jinnah) in a good light on it...and I doubt I ever will...and if anything can change it.

I am of course biased (who isn't?), but I feel it is unsettling to anyone if they look at him with as neutral eyes and enough context and understanding as possible.

I personally will always prefer and deeply respect the honest principled action of Gandhi.

As much as we can then debate those principles, he followed them honestly in a way it is near impossible to find another.... and it spurred a prolonged national stirring and consequential awakening like no other in history too.

In my near-final analysis, Gandhi was acting in good faith of Hindustan needing dignity, liberation, self-determination and national unity and pretty much start to finish once he developed his vision and platform.

It was and he was inevitably blemished with errors and faults, but it was and he was an overall edifice and example for eternity.

The identity was Hindustani nationalism, thats it...no other identity need colour and taint that for a very important reason (and this is what sub-identitarians, back then and today, don't grasp honestly and never will.

Jinnah and concoction of using religious faith (turning against many of his own asserted initial principles) convinced himself on a great folly to make some partitioned majoritarian setup on a sub-identity of Hindustan....and the region, world and humanity pays for it with great consequence.

This is why even though I may admire some parts of Jinnah's character, story and initial spirit... I can never like him as a whole or even close to that... given his mid stream change and final (deeply flawed) logic, conclusion and consequence of what he did.

I care not to much further explore what I exactly mean by "not liking"...especially what was and since has been wrought by this bubbled, elitist, dissonant idealism as to what is actually a worthy identity for national formation.

All the more given the state and predicament of the populace at the time (and today) that ought to be blindingly obvious to anyone with power and influence if they are well reasoned and honest (the two features that are of the ONLY consequence to me for any leader or person in general)

Filling society with this kind of irrational unprincipled basis that he and others did, given society having grossly imperfect temperament, condition and education (then and now) is unforgivable to me.

Ultimately it meant more spawning and establishment of properly abominable demagogues (who had far fewer redeeming qualities than Jinnah, and its obvious he did not account for this) and the entrenched negative displacement narrative that has led to half the country leaving it (with completely unnecessary further bloodshed of foulest kind) and now the remaining half atrophying as only @VCheng can best summarise with input and output design.

All because its elitists and demagogues needing to double down on this flawed identity complex that has taken new ungainly downstream proportions, with enough of the masses blindly believing them (then and now) or simply doing the "go along to get along" thing with them to earn their bread in some relative peace.

But the fact this extremely flawed narrative and all flawed counter-narratives (of which now India has it's particular supposedly newer toxic variant metastasizing) essentially seem to be the ones that have won and are winning more and more minds....seemingly again reminding us (or at least me) that it is the darkest parts of human nature that are most easily accessible to too many.

It is deeply repulsive to me to contemplate more than needed these days.

I prefer to be a small boat on surface on my merry way and not think of these undercurrents anymore.

I have long studied the history and psyche behind this globally when I had the interest and time for it, probably more than anyone else in this forum, with the likely exception of Joe.

It has scarred me for life...but also make me hold and appreciate that which is good and beautiful, ordered and rational in our species and in our world even more closer. But that does not sit well as sufficient silver lining for reasons unknown to me (maybe its because I get older and the shine on certain things I took for granted wears off)

Anyway to me, ultimately for this subcontinent, large portion of this dark undercurrent (at the levels of consequence in the modern more "enlightened" era i.e leadership) are traced back to Jinnah (and this late-stream involvement joe refers to, of which he was the spearhead), however well meaning he may or may not have been is known only to him and Him in the end.

To me, the way he went about doing what he did (stoking and doubling down on this psyche and narrative) while the congress leadership went full out in "quit India" against British during WW2 and got imprisoned/house arrested for it in stretches and thus were largely out of the picture to counter it in a crucial stretch of years....leaves a very unsettling thing to dwell on for me.

It reeks of an unprincipled unfair approach in bad faith. By the time they were out and about again, it was too late...the damage and I suppose destiny had set in.

It is subject I find sordid, it just puts me in a foul mood to think on it... as to the "could have beens" given what has now entrenched at great consequence and cost...further exacerbated by millions living in denial, ignorance or even some base, degenerate and perverse enjoyment at it.

I for one don't see any way out of it either, it now has gravity all on its own, just like the gravity I see in other regions of the world for matters the same and different.

All in just a tiny drop of time, just a few cohorts and fewer generations...demeaning all the great hopes and potential of their much longer lineage and heritage. That's all it takes to irreparably ruin all these lives, and so few (I find) are sufficiently attuned to that...not just in subcontinent, but the entire world.

It just saps me and crushes me, things like this (it being Christmas time and all)...the words, the reality vs hope.

For example, every word in the conclusion (at 43 minute mark to the very end of it though whole feature worth watching) feels like a cold, hard stone thrown in my face:

Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

I enjoyed watching this one....that era when transition to rockets over guns started given the advantages. With further development of sensoring and guidance, we now take such things for granted on modern warships.....but back then the basic innovations and doctrines had to be explored and...

defencehub.live

...and then I think in that time frame of that war, our boys and men that went to fight it for "king and country" that was not their own...did so for various reasons but often in the hope this would finally push a recognition by that "King and country" that we were equals deserving our political rights and ultimate right to express it as we chose to and work towards that goal...ready to sacrifice life if needed.

Those boys and men, those of which came from your neck of the woods (eg. Punjab regiments) and mine (eg. Madras Sappers), your very own forefathers and mine (And really not too long ago either).... would have known the names Hindustan, India and Bharat (while fighting and dieing in those foreign lands and foreign wars for that foreign King)....but not Pakistan. How is this circle squared by their descendants in all manner of ways? It takes it toll on lot of people thinking and action without them even realising it...the psyche deep down is a strange thing in our species.

So to me it is clear to see what happened and who the main agents were in perpetrating and exploiting some chosen rift of their fancy...going against their better, honest earlier judgement.

Easy to cleave, hard to build I suppose...no surprise the worst things we do involve the former and the best things we do involve the latter.

But the deep human spirit, our very souls know which one is easy and which is hard given we all deeply see a higher purpose in making effort for order, the order we seem to gleam in the universe around us and above us.

Thus I grow increasingly incensed when I see downstream effect of brother wars, knowing most people deep down must surely recognise and know this moral truth.

We were (and are) clearly brothers in the subcontinent...but all these hearts and minds poisoned against this is too much for me to dwell on anymore, especially at the 1st principles roots I see that did the most on creating this.

Simply I have been born into this poison, I have seen it all in my family too, the very people I love the most on this 3rd rock from the sun. I feel I likely only gained larger truth (on matters such as this) by distancing from all that.

I do not know whether to be happy or sad in doing that (distancing + reflection) nowadays. Maybe it was just better to stay "simpler" like them and less aware, keep certain things as black and white as possible...who knows.

For the more I push into the realm of complete honest morality, I just see more and more human failure in reality all around me.

It grinds and hurts my soul...I have to balance that now...I am not so young, ambitious and reckless like before, some reason my mind feels heavier now and needs to simply lose deadweight I feel is dragging it down.

I simply realise maybe 1 out of 100 people do or even attempt this good faith approach to some higher endeavour...so 99% of time I'm stuck like a sucker spouting what seems foolish platitudes and get left with short end of the stick....having pleased no one and maybe achieved worse in the end given everyone absolutely loves their echo chambers these days if they are even capable of seeing what those are in first place.

So in our region, the brother wars I see are the biggest stain...

Saare Jahan Se Accha, Hindositan Hamara...

Who wrote those words tells the story in how the brother war originates, spreads, establishes and lingers...

A most sad tragedy, given what the 1st partition entailed on innocent lives, what the 2nd partition in 1971 entailed again on innocent lives...and the entrenched emboldened narratives the brothers have formed on each other now that are merely taken to be default fact because its feels good and thus a number of (clear) deepest mistakes need justification or denial.

All when it could have been a pure crystallized focus on sons of the soil, the salt of the earth of a great land and civilisation, getting rid of oppressor from half the world away that had no right to be there...and then build bridges across whatever issues we have as Hindustanis.

What should have been the greatest triumph of unity, dignity and destiny... ended up being what we have now, founded on fears and lies (of a striking few) being stoked to grow, consume and persist...by simply knowing and exploiting (overtly or subconciously) that which is "downhill" vs "uphill" when it comes to human nature.

May God have mercy on our sins...may he punish every evil-doer and redeem every innocent lost..and judge all in-between.

All that does not happen down here by our free-will given our great egos we nurture and dark Babel towers we build at whatever cost to our fellow man

So much so that a brother will turn on a brother like this overnight, like Cain on Abel....after all that they have both been through....and it seems to be a rule rather than exception looking across time and space.

I have no words to describe this properly! I don't think any words exist at all for it. This only feels like a few drops of what lies in my heart on this predicament I see in mankind.

Only He knows best, only He knows the purpose of it all...I have to believe in this...that there is an absolute truth and justice somewhere....far away from the hands of men and mankind (man is not kind at all)....but a great reckoning for what they do with those hands with the precious little time allotted to them.

No it's fine here. This is books and research material right. This is conclusion of your research. I said people should read up on him and form their own opinions. I never said people should like even though I admire the man but brother ears have always been fought. For thousands of years. The very union under Guptas was the result of them making wars and wars are terrible. They were no friendly annexations. Brutal and of course even in the later years or medival period, this region and it's states have fought one another. So we cannot say that the current predicament is new or something unheard of. Infact I would say it was very common thing and I am not talking islamic. You can argue that something grand was being built that was unheard of in subcontinental history however as you so aptly put it that it takes two to clap and we also need to understand that jinnah may never have wanted this current inevitable situation. His ideal may have been based entirely on two states working and living together and I think this was a prevalent ideal amongst the leadership.

If we peruse the working of early congress leadership and early pakistan leadership then one thing becomes very clear that nobody thought this would be the most contested border in the world. Infact you read my book. You noticed how nehru felt about chinese incursions in both state of Hunza and aksai chin and his thinking was actually the last remnant thought of the old founding fathers that pakistan and india should work together to form a united front against chinese aggression and felt wronged when ayub signed the treaty with china rather than offering any united front. I have already highlighted the pragmatic nature of this decision but I use it to explain how early leadership never even imagined that pakistan and india would revert back to the base nature of the region.

Indian often say that the united india was the natural state of the region. It was not. United Hindustan was a radical idea. It was new and it was absolutely out of the box and I am guessing this is where you are basing the human ability to build or destroy but what you need for building is the mass will to build undeterred and from everyone but was that available? It was not. It was the lone solution but with the existence of the alternative, the will revealed itself hollow.


Anyhow we exist now so all we can do is make sure that we do not truly regress into the past and build a lasting future which is looking impossible in our lifetimes.

Nilgiri my friend, if the chapter hurts then there is no need to look into it. I myself have studied but have turned my back on two chapters. The partition and 1971.

 

[Nilgiri]

Indian often say that the united india was the natural state of the region. It was not. United Hindustan was a radical idea. It was new and it was absolutely out of the box and I am guessing this is where you are basing the human ability to build or destroy but what you need for building is the mass will to build undeterred and from everyone but was that available? It was not. It was the lone solution but with the existence of the alternative, the will revealed itself hollow.

I disagree, it wasn't given a proper chance with due reference to the inertia behind it...political expedience is what coloured and corrupted it...and in just a few short years. Rest was just "an idea who's time has come" by playing on people's fears....rather than anything else far more positive (but more difficult).

You live in the downstream, so you cannot insert easily in the upstream. Where were the referenda of an educated people cognisant of their rights to express what the "natural state" was, and in a suitable position to express this.....over what politicians saw?...especially given developing the former naturally diminishes what a politician can exist in and exploit?

At an extreme, this can be expanded grossly to almost any situation that exists today or any event that happened in the past....simply for it transpiring.

That it was inevitable this and that happened in China, Europe, Americas, Persia, Africa...you name it. That Israel was an idea who's time had come clearly, simply by existing now, even though it had not existed for nearly 2 millenia as a political entity of any kind.

But I guess the word Israel, Jacob's own other name....has existed longer than those 2 millenia...you can find it in the good book itself.

But where is the name Pakistan in this world history, and why did it have to be invented in such a short time frame? That in itself speaks to what is natural, unnatural and what can be construed as "inevitable" simply because it happened.

I mean how far do we really want to go? That it was "inevitable" the NSDAP did what they did with the reins of political power and downward thinking.....merely because the existence of a foreign ethnicity within their country (and Europe in larger sense as it would become plainly clear) was an "unnatural" state?...as expressed by some politicians, elitists and leaders of the time...(that the population then fell behind lock step?)

W.r.t that population that did that and now hold culpability....where were the severe pogroms in Germany before that episode? List and names please of such happening in the unnatural 1000+ years existence there at the same intensity in periods...to clearly foretell what would come by "natural" expression at THAT magnitude?

The overall analysis (And conventional wisdom) at the time (early 20th century) preceding it was that anti-semitism turning into something bigger was likely to happen in two countries: Russia and France....given a number of factors (and actual mass scale sustained pogroms in the former)....but NEVER on that scale we saw.

So if we have no evidence of what happened during the partition itself happening regularly between salt-of-earth and sons-of-soil neighbours spread in often 50/50 way (when split by some sub-identity of many sub-identities in existence) in the border areas and interiors...given they shared so much and still share so much in what they do day to day that forms identities in first place.

Why is it the INC won elections in parts of pakistan barely a clock tick before the partition (even after Jinnah and ML did what they did in the final hours of the ball game)?

Why did the vast majority of muslims on the Indian side stay put?

Why is it I have been called a "P**i" by Goray a number of times, if this unnatural state was so complete and would extend surely to any removed eye for something like the bloodshed at partition to happen.

India holds together despite far greater heterogeneity on religion and just about any other metric and social friction potential than Pakistan. Pakistan notably didn't.

....even with the muslim-majoritarianism it achieved (and now inevitably needs some further definition or clarification from original claim and repackaging till the next stark political-salivating fissure pops up relative to status-quo ease or building toughness)

So there is nothing to illustrate that Hindustan would have fissured with the right set of political movements with the appropriate recognition of what the revolution of the time actually was and what the system needing to be built was to LATER harness from the public at large (any sentiments of further sub-nationhood) when they were actually in a state to do so (education, condition, knowledge of rights and issues) and had proper references to compare with how it was going under Hindustani polity and unity. There are multiple rational and intelligent ways to do this.

There is thus a final reality the wedge being identified and driven (at the time), was not what it genuinely claimed to be in some rational way from a 1st principle....but rather that it was merely big enough, easily accessible enough and saw an expedient fissure to get to work on....so that one set of politicians/elitists would always have their unchallenged, unrivalled scope on what most naturally comes to them...and other politicians/elitists downstream inevitably augmented or responded to this over time too...since its the reality they were born in shaped already.

Does not mean any of it was natural or inevitable with proper context and reference to the region and the history of the world at large on the exact same issues succeeding and failing with different realms of intensities and consequences.

Nilgiri my friend, if the chapter hurts then there is no need to look into it. I myself have studied but have turned my back on two chapters. The partition and 1971.

No I might as well take opportunity to get this all out, its my decision...I came close to not answering but I wanted to see how it came out of me, because sometimes its different when you need to put words to something

....I am most interested to see what @VCheng and @Joe Shearer have to say as well.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Does not mean any of it was natural or inevitable with proper context and reference to the region and the history of the world at large on the exact same issues succeeding and failing with different realms of intensities and consequences.

I didnt say inevitable. The subcontinent was always home of nations that had formed their own states and many of those states had existed for hundreds of years only to be bulldozed by a foreign power. Many so far away that they neither spoke the same language nor the language style nor even shared the climate. These nations traded with each other, fought wars with each other but always existed as nations all over the world did. The united nature of this large region was indeed a radical idea. That does not mean that it was inevitable to fail yet it did. The region was not formed as one. The large region saw a good section refuse and formed their own polity.

You give example of historical names but refuse to acknowledge that Pakistan is an acronym of various states that have existed in the region. Punjab, Sindh, Afgahnia, Balochistan, Kashmir. Are we ignore these states? I asbolute disagree when people pick Pakistan and say where it is in history. Pakistan is a federation of these states that have existed and will always exist. Their own history and their own culture existed and will exist. How can we ignore this absolute evidence that these states have history of existence. True they were occupied as all states were once but that doesnt change the fact that these states have existed historically as their own polity and it is perfectly natural for these states to form a union which they did.

You give examples of Indian muslims but why ignore all the people of Pakistan who chose Pakistan. Do their choice not count. Hurrah for those Muslims that picked India and believed in Hindustan but we didnt. We neither wanted to nor wished to be part of that poltiy.
Pakistan was also a radical idea. A federation of states that had existed in the region for thousands of years and Pakistan is embracing its federation nature. You say Pakistan was never mentioned in history. I disagree. The states and people that encompass Pakistan are mentioned in history and rich history and to ignore that is a criminal act to the people of Pakistan. Do names mean that identity lies forgotten? who decided that? are we to only pick historical names to gain any sense of history? So that means that when people chose to become Pakistani, an acronym of their states, their history was taken from them? Absolutely not.

Pakistan and India were federations formed in 1947 but they derive their history from the states and the people that had existed for thousands of years to deny both that right is an unfair act.

 

[Saiyan0321]

There is thus a final reality the wedge being identified and driven (at the time), was not what it genuinely claimed to be in some rational way from a 1st principle....but rather that it was merely big enough, easily accessible enough and saw an expedient fissure to get to work on....so that one set of politicians/elitists would always have their unchallenged, unrivalled scope on what most naturally comes to them...and other politicians/elitists downstream inevitably augmented or responded to this over time too...since its the reality they were born in shaped already.

The wedge was extremely real and the fact that the moment an alternative was given that it came to fruition is the greatest evidence of it. a party losses the election in the worst possible manner and three years later gives the people, who feel that the only way to get independence is to work towards a single polity, an alternative. 7 years later that alternative is the popular choice. why? its because the will to build such was absolutely hollow in the eyes of many. I am not discrediting those that worked for united india or gave everything to make India work. I respect their choice however it doesnt change the fact that for many it was hollow.

Previously for them it was remove the British at all costs and get a united hindustan however now they had an alternative where it was remove the british and get Pakistan at all costs. So many people went for the alternative is evidence of the fact that the radical idea of a united hindustan felt hollow for many and the fact their will was far stronger in fighting for Pakistan rather than a united polity is proof that they did not believe the slogan they chanted before the alternative was presented to them.