(RKN wrote: It's unfair to pick up bits and pieces out
of context to paint someone a
fundamentalist. The statements have to be read in the
context of the social
milieu and time in history to understand their true
import.)
While Jinnah may not have been a fundamentalist
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050609/asp/nation/story_4845560.asp
If any one who should be annoyed by Lalji?s (Advani) remark, it should
be the Congress,? George Fernandes said in Guwahati. Quoting veteran
politicians and historians, Fernandes said it was Jawaharlal Nehru and
the Congress who
Halur,
If the socialist Nehru had allowed Jinnah to be the PM of India,
Pakistan would not have existed. We all could have lived as a happy
familly in a true secular India.
Regards,
Carlos
halur rasho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If Jinnah was secular, Pakisan would not exist. Or else the two-
If Jinnah was secular, Pakisan would not exist. Or else the two-nation theory
is highest form of secularism? And why two-nation theory? Was Jinnah prejudiced
against Christians? If he was secular, he would have demanded a seperate
country for Indian christians too
> On 09/06/05, sandeep heble <[
(Sandeep Heble wrote: By no standards could Jinnah have been called a
secular liberal leader. Jinnah never conceived of a Pakistan which was based
on the principles of secularism that completely separated the State from
religion. Rather, he envisioned Pakistan as a state whose political, social
