Well-known historians have all maintained that to Jinnah the Muslims of undivided India were a separate cultural entity requiring their own homeland.
Jinnahβs desire to see this through was born from his awkwardness with the idea of a post-colonial India subjugated by the βHindu-dominatedβ Indian National Congress: even though the Congress was almost entirely secular.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that Jinnahβs push to carve out a separate Muslim country was made in order to construct an Islamic state.
For years Pakistanis have debated about how Jinnah went about claiming Pakistan. Was he able to think it through, or did he fail to perceive the vulnerability of his claim?
Many also believe that his claim in this respect was too open-ended. Thatβs why it was easily exploited by some who eventually turned it into a monolithic entity and a militaristic bastion of Islam.
It is ironic that the first Pakistani head of state to sincerely try to realise Jinnahβs concept of Pakistan was a military dictator. Field Marshal Ayub Khanβs regime (1959-69) still remains perhaps the most secular in the countryβs history.
Apart from, of course, sidelining the democratic aspects of Jinnahβs concept, Ayub otherwise went about defining (through legislation) his understanding of Jinnahβs Pakistan.
To him it was about a secular Muslim majority state sustained by the genius of entrepreneurial action, a strong military, and the spirit of modernistic and progressive Islam of the likes of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal and Jinnah.
However, in a naturally pluralistic society like Pakistan with multiple ethnicities, religions and Islamic sects, if one takes out democracy from the above equation, one would get (as Ayub did) ethnic strife, religious reactionary-ism and class conflict.
The class-based and multi-ethnic commotion in this respect opened windows of opportunity for well-organised leftist groups who were not only successful in forcing Ayub out (1969), but they also eschewed the religious opposition to the Field Marshalβs government.
Left parties like the Pakistan Peopleβs Party (PPP), National Awami Party (NAP), and student groups like the National Students Federation (NSF), in the former West Pakistan, achieved this by attacking Ayubβs βpro-rich policiesβ (state-facilitated capitalism), and, on the other hand, neutralised the Islamic fundamentalists by adding a new twist to Jinnahβs image.
For example, the PPP advocated Jinnah to be a progressive democrat wh
... keep reading on reddit β‘So I was recently watching a playthrough of the video game L.A. Noire, set in, you guessed it, Los Angeles in 1947 (though released in 2011). A line said by one of the characters, Rusty Galloway, a veteran policeman and older man who often espouses views on women that other characters consider backward, even for 1947, like bragging about his wife-beating prowess and rampant slut-shaming, but with a bit of an implication that he exaggerates these views to annoy the protagonist, Cole Phelps, who has more progressive views for that time, jumped out at me, and I would like to know if it was historically accurate. The line is, from what I remember, something pretty closely along the lines of "If you think we treat our women badly, wait till you meet one of these Nordic-types", "we" referring to the men of Los Angeles.
This line jumped out at me because today, whether liberal or conservative, one thing most Americans seem to agree on (as a non-American myself) is that Europe in general and the Nordic countries in particular tend to have more progressive views on social issues such as gender relations in comparison to the United States. So what were gender relations like in the Nordic countries in 1947? Were there some rights they did not have or social mores that would cause even a highly conservative American man of the time to consider them backwards in comparison to Los Angeles society or American society in general at the time?
India also scores higher on many other metrics such as quality of life, GDP per capita. What could explain this?
I honestly cannot comprehend the logic behind creating a separate country for Muslims.
The satanic verses book was banned in a secular country because it offended Muslims. I sometimes think Hindus are pseudo majority and the country is run by our minority religion.
What kinda secular country lets a Muslim guy have four wives while the majority religion gets new updated laws that curtails him to only one wife?
In an ideal world this scenario would have happened
-
sub continent splits into two countries.
-
Pakistan becomes Islamic nation
-
India become real secular country - no religion bullcrap, all citizens come under uniform civil code.
Darth Brooks
3, one to screw in the lightbulb, and two to write a song about it!
Curious because in the hispanic countries it's very common to listen to music from other countries. I can name artists from the majority of countries
Argentina: Duki, Khea, Trueno, Cazzu
Spain: Rosalia, C Tangana, Rels B
Colombia and PR: The majority of urban artists
Well I can't name artists from Bolivia or Ecuador but that's because they don't have a lot of population I think. However, Brazil has a massive population in comparition with the other portuguese countries so i'm wondering if you listen music of your brother nations
