From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 2 Jan 1993 16:49:16 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1i4qkuINN4b2@menudo.uh.edu> mece1e3@Jane.UH.EDU writes:
::
::
:As far as I understand the history of the partition goes as follows:
:Iqbal was interested in the upliftment of Muslim masses and he did not
:believe that the solution can be achieved by the socialism as followed
:by Nehru. He envisioned a solution based on the framework of Islam. But
:he also knew that this solution cannot be based on the framework of a
:secular India as the majority Hindu population will never accept a solution
:based on Islam. However, Iqbal died long before the actual scenerio of Pakistan
:became clear; so any amount of blame for the bloodshed should not rest on
:him. I think he would have been the first person to protest and die a la Gandhi
:if people were killed in the name of Hindustan/Pakistan.

Good. I agree upto this point, because it all agrees with the facts.

:
:Jinnah was not interested in Islam per se; but he found Iqbal's premise logical
:and went on ahead with it. 

This is not supported by Jinnah's actual "words" and "efforts" towards
the freedom of Pakistan. It is based on conjecture and circumstantial
evidence about the way he used to dress, and live. As such, it makes
good splashes in tabloids like "Freedom at Midnight", whose goal
was  not to write an objective  history, but the goal was to make money.
History is not written by people like Le, piere (sp?).

:He envisioned an essentially secular state but where
:Islamic solutions can be implemented. His personal ambition also played a big
:role.

This statement conflicts with the previous one. Both can not be true
simulatneously. "Need for Power" or "personal ambition" as defined
in psychology is totally subjective, and can always be applied to any
leader.

:Muslim league local level leaders did not understand any of the grandidose
:plans of either Iqbal or Jinnah but mounted a pure hate campaign which as
:expected went out of hand. 

I can agree with the above, because their actions after the formation
of Pakistan and after the death of Jinnah, testify to their intellectual
and mental bankruptcy in not being able to provide coherent future
direction and goals.

:The similar situation can be seen in RJB issue
:today. While the politicians like Advani may want to use the RJB as a political
:lever or symbolic protest the ground level Vajrangdal will go on simple hate.
:

Can't say any thing about RJB, because I don't say much. Whereas, I can
say this much about Pakistan Movement that it was fired by visions
of the future much grandiose than destroying a these  mosques here and
killing few Muslims there.

:Jamat-i-islami leaders like Maududi did not have a political agenda. They were
:interested in the spread of Islam and thus opposed partition. As by definition
:it will prevent Islam from spreading into any of the remaining Hindu areas.

I agree. Politics of leaders like Maudoodi was subservient to the
cause of the spread of Islam. Unlike Azad's opposition, however, this
meant that casue of spread of Islam must continue whehter there are
politically one geographical entities or hundred. Hence, JI split
into two components, one in India, the other in Pakistan. Both taylored
their politics to the political realities on the ground. Whreas, JI Hind
remained apolitical because that benefitted the Muslims of India, 
JI Pakistan became vociferously political because Pakistan was formed
in the name of Islam, and as such should become example of it, rather
than some hodgepodge of secularism, socialism, and democracy.

:The bottom line is that Islam nowhere dictated that Pakistan must be created
:; but Pakistan was created because of Islam

And from this fact arose the following "compulsion":

If a country has already been created in the name of Islam, then
it should truly be made to subscribe to Islamic Ideals.