JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition book. Happy reading JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition Pocket Guide.


Then further asked for a separate country for muslims definately secular i guess… that appears more islamic to me. Then when Pakistan was created he suddenly become secular and democratic. Lets not fool ourselves. Yes Jinnahs great achievment was creating Pakistan.

But at the end of the day he was neither secular, neither islamic, neither democratic. He was whatever he needed to be for convenience to further his own agenda like any other politician. Comparing Jinnah to the greatness of Gandhi who was also flawed in his own way is not only blasphemous, its beyond that. Nehru and Jinnah were very good leaders but would easily change their stance and give up on their principles to further their own cause and for power. The result is for all of us to see.

Its not the end yet and thats what Pakistanis need to think about. All leaders are human and make mistakes. What if Congress was not that powerless? What if Congress too believed in a TWO state solution? What if Congress worked with the other powerful player the British to establish a TWO state solution? What if Jinnah and ML just got all the blame, just because it was the weakest party compared to Congress and British, — Mind you Jinnah just used politics, while military and police and government rested with British and Congress.

Patel was the home minister leading up to the final days in Jinnah wanted to make Pakistan a home for minority Muslims and minority low cast Hindu and Christians. He was absolutely clear in his thinking in making Pakistan a secular country. This can be seen from his speeches and his action. He ordered the first national anthem written by a Hindu poet while there were many better Muslim poet at that time is a solid proof that he wanted to sew the seed of secularism.

He was a much much better Muslims than now millions of Muslims in Pakistan. Here again comes Rex Minor with the theory that Man originated from a waterless desert called Arabia…. And of course,spare me the lecture on Goethe,Emmanuel Kant to explain your Afghan weed induced theories. There is a lot to learn from history. India has settled into nationhood, Pakistan has not. Even after break-up of East Pakistan, Pakistan is an unstable country.

The inability to accept reality, the truth, is one reason for their unnecessary suffering. How many thousands of innocent precious lives have been lost? More than countries released stamps on Gandhi,just a handful of countries mostly muslim has Jinnah stamps 3. Gandhi is known almost to every American school student,Jinnah only by the South Asian origin students..

The Nobel committee cancelled the Peace Prize in as they failed to give Gandhi the award when he was alive…. Jinnah is becoming like a Chuck Norris in Pakistan,maybe people will believe if someone says his tears cure cancer. Everything here is factual and there is nothing inconsistent with your guidelines. It took me a lot of effort to write this. Why just Pakistanis, most Indians at least today if not in are glad that Pakistan was created. So we can al join in thanking Jinnah for creating Pakistan. You are correct of course that people cannot and should not blame Jinnah for the state that Pakistan finds itself.

Also regardless of what Jinnah may have conceived in , if Pakistanis want something different, they can and should make it happen. Indians have bought into the secular and democratic princples that Nehru envisioned but have discarded the socialistic philosophy he followed, trusting the market more.

The actions and opinions of Jinah pre are not relevant to that discussion. The journey from hardly any votes in to sweeping mandates in Muslim majority areas wa won on the back of 2 nation theory and slogans such as Naara-e-takbir and Pakistan ka matlab kia — none of which can be considered secular. Jinah as the unquestioned leader of the Muslim League could hardly have een unaware of this. Even the claim that he represented al Muslims instead of all Indians is hardly secular to begin with. If as you say Khan had lost majority then there should have been a vote of no confidence and Khan would have no choice about resigning if he lost the vote.

But this is not what was done. Direct Action Day is also something Jinnah called for and showed that he sought to win through violence, that which he could not win through negotiation. Do evaluate the speech of Lahore. It focusses on what is different between Hindus and Muslims and concludes from there that due to these differences they are 2 nations and cannot live with each other. Is this formulation secular? Is the slogan Muslim ho to League me aao not communal? Does it not imply that if you do not join Muslim League, you are not a true Muslim? No need toguess — Jinah gave the rationale himself: If he thought that was necessary to give confidence o minrities, he certainly made no effort to implement such safeguards in Pakistan.

Actions speak louder than words. This is not to say that he was personally bigoted.

  • Why Pakistan's Mohammed Ali Jinnah Was No Nelson Mandela?
  • Accessibility links.
  • Books by Roderick Matthews (Author of Jinnah vs. Gandhi).
  • Not Found (#404).
  • More from The Times of India!
  • Definitely no Calories?

But then personally he ate pork and drank alcohol and yet led a movement for creation of a country for Muslims, so this is not his private life but public persona that the whole debate is focussed on. We actually thank him. I am sure Pakistanis too thank him. Perhaps people in present day Bangladesh blame him? I do not know. Also once Jinnahs terms for keeping India united became clear disproportionate representation for Muslims not in line with population strength, electorate divided along communal lines — Congress for Hindus and Muslim league for Muslims , then Sardar Patel and Nehru too felt that two state solution would be best.

This is clear from their response to Cabinet Mission Plan. SO the questions that you pose have been asked and answered I think. Live in the real world, stop fooling ourselves, killing ourselves. Give good education top priority. Make friends with India, make friends with Hindus, for good, for today, tomorrow, for all times. Stop thinking of them as enemies, think of them as good neighbors. Stop thinking in terms of superiority and inferiority as far religion is concerned. We are now 65 plus, learn to think, behave, and act accordingly.

Others have gone miles ahead, look at Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, etc etc. Despite your shrieks and wails to the opposite, the fact remains: Gandhi was a dhoti drama secular who behind this convenient garb, practiced and promoted hindu rituals and culture, some of them quite repulsive to name here but you know what I mean.

If not, ask his niece! The fact that our country has become a basket case does not mean that 1.


Partition 70 years on: The turmoil, trauma - and legacy

In Pakistan, we are moving ahead with cleaning up our political system through elected parties and hopefully, if change gets traction, we will wean ourselves off of the US aid that we have been suckling on for five decades. If we succeed, and I have all the faith we will, india will look like a dust cloud in the rear view mirror! Yes, Ethnic and Sectarian cleaning seems to be catching on.

Ha ALI who knows jinnah outside pakistan,Talk to a iranian if he knows who jinnah was. To keep the facts straight pls. Ironey is that same jamaat opposed the creation of Pakistan. Furthermore JI not only penetrated in Pakistani politics but also hijacked Jinnah secular vision for a new state giving it a new direction by introducing notion of 2 nation theory during Yehya Khan regime who wanted to lengthen his regime under the cover of Religion and nationalism with crush India wall chalking throuhout Pakistan.

Clearly Jinnah has not forwarded any Idea such as 2 nation theory. A country Indian fear and obsessed with. The comments by Indians on this article are a good reminder to any deluded Pakistani questioning the partition on why it was necessary. The same can be said of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman. If that is the criteria to be applied for greatness, I am afraid there will be many more like Jinnah in the future as well.

Jinnah was a lawyer not a leader so he won a court case for Pakistan but screwed up everything else. His rhetoric was wrong and lacked depth.

  1. 80s Chart-Toppers: Every Chart-Topper Tells a Story?
  2. THE DAWN OF PAKISTAN - esugekaqasin.tk.
  3. Tears Drops on Paper.
  4. Reader Comments (118)!
  5. esugekaqasin.tk: Roderick Matthews: Books.
  6. When you get a homeland for Muslims in the name of that you subjugate others. Can you give proof that this slogan was raised during Pakistan compaigne. Yes, I can provide you with proof. And not only proof, but proof admitted by Mr YLH himself. Neither I nor the working committee of the Muslim League have passed any resolution to the effect Pakistan ka matlab kiya. You might have done so to catch a few votes. Dear Usman, most Muslims stayed back in India. In retrospect, a most sensible decision. Consider where Pakistan is and where India is today.

    No country is perfect, but if one is given a free choice, to decide which country has a better future, considering all conditions, all aspects, what would be your honest answer? There is tremendous poverty in both countries, tremendous inequalities, tremendous problems.

    BBC News Navigation

    We all to have to realize that. But considering that Pakistan has and had more chances of rapid improvement, because of smaller numbers, we have simply failed. Just consider the latest fiasco, just two major political parties cannot even decide on a temporary Prime Minister, until the very last day.

    Consider a Newspaper report that the Christian community whose houses have been burnt down by a mad crowd were given cheques that bounced back. Was Pakistan really created for normal human beings??. We thank our stars that Pakistan was created and we are obviously quivering with fear watching Pakistan crumble. Its actually sad to see so much false bravado in Pakistan. Ask any indian about problems in India they will not deny them and we all know India has a ton of problems.

    Pakistanis have been fed with so much doctored info over the years, there is an in built automatic defense mechanism in many Pakistanis to counter any argument with emotion and to deny basic facts by miscontruing reallity for their own convenience. Jinnah did a great thing for India and Pakistan in creating Pakistan barring the tragic loss of life during partition but he had no real plan for developing Pakistan thereafter.

    Also Jinnah totally forgot about the comman man and only further cemented the feudal set up in Pakistan. Lets not get lost in some romantic perception of Jinnah, he did what he had to, to get Pakistan and we thank him for it in retrospection. Pakistanis 65 years later are still discussing matters regarding the reasons for its creation and Jinnahs vision obviously shows that things havent quite gone to plan. We seem to be stuck in a time warp. India is currently slightly better off but also needs alot of introspection.

    Both counties needs visionaries and India has probably been slightly luckier on that front than Pakistan. Both countries have also had their fair share of pathetic leaders as well. India has probably been luckier on that front aswell. Pakistan Bangladesh relations are far better than India Bangladesh relations. After 40 years, separation of Bangladesh is not as such a painful chapter for Pakistanis. Bangladeshis are brothers, simply. In comparison, for Indians the Partition is very painful till date.

    Pakistan Bangladesh relations are far better than India Bangladesh Ohh.. But for Bangladeshis, still resonates. It matters not what Mr Jinnah meant about his MUSLIM league campaign for the creation of a muslim state, what matters is how it was perceived by those who participated in the refrendum and those who ruled the country during his life and those after him. There is certainly no majority for making Pakistan on the footsteps of the Iranian caliphate.

    The majority in the muslim world want an Islamic State, a democracy reflecting muslim moral values and ethics, and all its citizens having equal rights andd responsibilities for the State. The blesphamic and the excommunication is a separate development of Pakistan Gang ho and this circus must be set aside.. These acts are unislamic!! Thor, My grand pa was working in british railways in east punjab when riots broke out and first train got burn and killed at amritser station and those peoples were mostlly from NWFP present KPK means hazara pakhtoon.

    After 65 years, Jinnah is still on the nerves of the Indians. Jinnah wanted Muslim Rights. Bangladesh also opted not to unite with India. True Jinnah was against one man one vote in United India and demanded equal voting representation for Muslims though the numbers were much smaller. This outright undemocratic demand from Jinnah was unacceptable to congress who preferred partition. Since he felt that equal voting for demographically unequal populations was necessary for ensuring Muslim rights in United India, did he give such equal voting to minorities in Pakistan?

    In Pakistan one person one vote was sufficient to guarantee minority rights. Why then did he deem it insufficient to ensure Muslim rights in India? This fundamentally shows that he felt Muslims were entitled to more than Muslims which is both undemocratic and not secular. If you do not know that the cradle of human civilition emanated rom the middle east, then this is sad. If you do not know about the 63, year old skull of the modern human which was found in Laos, or about the latest anthropologlcal findings which are based on archaeological discoveriesa, then you are not a man of science.

    But if you have not the energy to look up yourelf for this information or undergo a DNA check, then you are an anamoly in the 21st century Knowledge society, where every one has the possibility to learn from one another with assistence from uncle Google! If you are an Indian then I guess you come from the times of Emperior ShahJehan, who was the first the first to introduce social reforms for the people, providing food and care for those who were unemployed poor. ET — This is my 3rd attempt to respond to someone who had challenged what I had said.

    My rebutal is factual. IT is disappointing that you will not allow. Thank you and I enjoy mosts of your posts to — even the few where I do not agree entirely. You asked me 2 questions. I am quoting fro this wiki url http: Pakistan ka matlab kiya?

    Partition 70 years on: The turmoil, trauma - and legacy - BBC News

    He was a great worker of Pakistan Movement. I am quoting from his speech on March 22 at Lahore. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality ; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s].

    They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s].

    Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. The irony is that if Indian had remained undivided, by now muslims would have political power over the entire subcontinent…….. So in reality, Jinnah saved hindus from falling back to permanent muslim rule via democracy………that would have meant a complete wipeout of hinduism from South Asia in the long run……..

    Then why did Mr Jinnah not reflect his vision, if it was different to what the Ottomans had or that practiced in Spain and Hungary during muslim rule, or what was in the colonial muddle through system? Why did he not copy one of the western constutions, which India took years to choose from the latest version of the French constitution which reflects the french history of religion, monarchy, and enlightenments during the period of renaissance and after industrialisation.

    The Govt equaly has no authority over the Church and the religion as well as its properties including places for worshp, hospitals, schools and Madrassas. This concord is still valid. However we must understand that India-Bangladesh relations, or for that matter, India-Pakistan relations will have their fair share of ups and downs. We will have converging interests and competing interests. The only thing is that we have to work through them so that the people of our countries benefit.

    Besides,origin of man is different from Origin of civilization.. Humans underwent lot of social transformation to become a civilization… The oldest human originated in Africa and then migrated everywhere…. Dont think u can confuse me with ur rhetoric.. Once again,please provide the link which says the first man originated from Arabia?? How long does it take to provide links supporting your asserions.. Afte ET allows us to publish links…. Besides,I know u used ShahJahan as a tactic to divert my attention,but it wont work this time…Provide me the link or accept defeat….

    Ranjit, In undivided India, in every provincial elections before the religiously charged atmosphere of , The Muslim League of Jinnah would lose the elections to Congress candidates in Muslim majority areas because majority of Muslims voted for Congress. Let me confuse you further, Try and follow the post of GP65, she is an Indian woman and in my observation a talented one too, she also follows others comments, but does not challenge unless she has evidence to the contrary and afterwards expresses her piece in apparently an amicable manner.

    We can all learn from her. Have a nice day, Sir. You stated — My grand pa was working in british railways in east punjab when riots broke out and first train got burn and killed at amritser station and those peoples were mostlly from NWFP present KPK means hazara pakhtoon. To ignore the fact that Hindus and Sikhs were also victims of the massacre does not respect the extent of the human tragedy that took place. This is not true. Even Justice Muhammad Munir, who was member of the Punjab Boundary Commission, mentions on page 17 of his book, From Jinnah to Zia, that the Muslims were the first to resort to large-scale massacres.

    The systematic killing of mainly Sikhs but also Hindus took place in the villages around Rawalpindi and Gujjar Khan between the night of March , and continued until March However, the real big-scale continuous massacres began after the announcement of the Radcliffe Award on 17 August, and more Muslims died in those attacks because they were completely unprepared whereas the Sikhs had been preparing for such an eventuality ever since more than 2, of them were killed in the March riots.

    I fully support the views expressed by you and the information you have given. I was present there to witness the events of March All over Pathowar, mobs not different from the ones that descended on Christians in Lahore, were on a rampage in villages like Sukkho, Daultala, Gujjarkhan, Banda etc.

    The Great Indian Rope Trick: Does the Future of Democracy Lie with India?

    They were burning the houses of Sikhs and Hindus, killing them, raping their women folk, and carrying away camel-loads of loot. Nothing has changed in Pakistan over as many as 66 years, and will probably never. Indeed it goes on an on and now there is no one to speak for them! Thou reapeth that thou soweth! Asked why it took her so long to visit Pakistan, she replied: It would be wrong to say that Jinnah was bereft of all familial love. His sister, Fatima, was the most steadfast and loyal companion of his. Ironically, this proved to be her deathknell.

    She was asphyxiated to death in her own bed. You would have been doing better under Modi or Thakrey than doing under your current or past leaderships. Many thanks your last. If possible — also if the Moderators allow — please let me have your E-Mail Address. Many thanks in advance. Comic Wisdom - by Sabir Nazar September Comic Wisdom - by Sabir Nazar August Comic Wisdom - by Sabir Nazar July Comic Wisdom - by Sabir Nazar June This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from.

    Friday, 21 Sep Subscribe. Friday, 21 Sep Today's Paper Advertise. By Yasser Latif Hamdani. If a Shia, you are on your own When governments make alliances with terrorists these organisations are supposed to bust, they cannot be effective. Being Mr Jinnah 'It was time Mr Jinnah became more than a mythical character from textbooks for my son. He must be a lonely person in his family-life after Jinnah was greater than Gandhi is true indeed. Hamdani for enlightening us!!

    The elections proves the point. The statement is just absurdly stupid. Thank you for posting a rebuttal! Indian Wisdom Like the author said it was a political claim which was backed up by the elections in Jinnah had nothing to do with ? So keep it up, some day you really will achieve wisdom! Well said Yasser Sahib Recommend. Yasser too provide some references P.

    Indian Wisdom As Indians here are so fond of telling Pakistanis to counter their arguments, which they think are incontrovertible, rather than talk about motives, you would do well to point out what is incorrect in his arguments rather than using hyperbole. Many articles have been written on the same subject, each arguing on either of the two sides: Does it make a difference which of the two sided you pick?

    I tend to agree with Mr. However I beg you all readers to consider the most important aspect in any country. Let us not doubt our Arab origins. Now that Pakistan exists, we have to make something of it. Let us get on with the job at hand. For detailed views of historian Ayesha Jalal go to the audio file on this link: A witty saying proves nothing -Voltaire Recommend. According to Jaswant Singh, Jinnah was honest and straight forward; Congress was hypocrite.

    This whole debate is skewed as it assumes, i That thousands of Muslim League leaders and members and millions of Pakistan supporters counted for zilch, and only Mr Jinnah mattered. Is today Congress Party is the sole representative of all Indians? Maybe more thn their own newspapers… Recommend. Maybe indians if put more focus on their own country internal issues can fix bigger issues like poverty, corruption, popularion and rape Recommend. Was Jinnah greater than Maududi too? Jinnah was a politician. All leaders are human and make mistakes Recommend. These are the questions no one wants to consider in this debate.

    One prim memsahib described her as "a complete minx. A year later she had died while he was away studying in London. He told friends that he hadn't kissed a woman since then although, hearing that particular tale, the irrepressible poetess Sarojini Naidu trilled, "Liar, liar, liar! Jinnah left no record of what transpired between him and Ruttie amid the emerald tea plantations of Darjeeling, but clearly a romance blossomed.

    Why Pakistan's Mohammed Ali Jinnah Was No Nelson Mandela

    When they returned to Bombay at the end of the summer, Jinnah asked Sir Dinshaw how he felt about intermarriage. The Parsi didn't realize what his Muslim friend was angling at. A capital idea, Petit declared - just the thing to help break down the foolish barriers that divided Indians from one another. Jinnah's next question horrified him, though. The nearly year-old Muslim marrying his teenage daughter? The idea was "absurd! Jinnah was not to be discouraged, however, either personally or politically. He and Ruttie continued to correspond secretly. Like many of the youth in her circle she was enthralled by the romance of the nationalist movement, and that winter she eagerly followed the news coming out of the graceful Mughal city of Lucknow, capital of the United Provinces, where Jinnah had helped arrange for the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress to hold their annual sessions simultaneously.

    For the first time the two parties agreed on a common set of demands to make of the British - what became known as the "Lucknow Pact. The Lucknow Pact raised Jinnah's political stock sky-high; he seemed a shoo-in to become president not just of the League, but perhaps even the much larger Congress one day.

    A few months later, soon after Ruttie had turned 18, she and Jinnah scandalized Bombay's Parsi community by eloping. They quickly became one of the city's most glamorous couples, cruising down Marine Drive in Jinnah's convertible at sunset each night, her hair loose in the wind. Then Jinnah threw it all away. Just as his political career was reaching its zenith, the spotlight shifted to another Gujarati lawyer, born just 30 miles from Jinnah's ancestral village. In a year-old Mahatma Gandhi had returned to India from South Africa, where he had lived for the past two decades, and where his efforts to organize South Africa's Indian immigrant community had made him a celebrity.

    Gandhi dubbed his strategy satyagraha - literally, "soul force" - and he now proposed replicating his methods in India. He did not challenge the principle behind satyagraha - the idea that Indians should peacefully refuse to cooperate with their British overlords. But he did not believe that the Indian masses were educated or disciplined enough to ensure their protests remained nonviolent. He thought Congress leaders needed to prepare their followers first. Not all of Jinnah's motivations were so high-minded, of course. He was unquestionably a snob: He also found Gandhi's appeal to the largely Hindu masses dangerously crude.

    At his evening prayer meetings, the Mahatma would frame his political arguments using parables from Hindu fables; he described his vision for independent India as a "Ram Rajya" - a mythical state of ideal government under the god Ram. All the chanting and meditating that accompanied Gandhi's sermons seemed to Jinnah like theatrics. Jinnah would have been hard-pressed to ignore the year old Ruttie. What is almost never acknowledged, though, is that Jinnah worried less about Hindus than about the danger of inflaming religious passions among Muslims.

    At the time mullahs across the subcontinent were threatening to launch a jihad if the British, who had defeated the Ottomans in World War I, deposed the Turkish Sultan - the caliph, or leader, of the world's Sunnis. Led by a pair of fiery brothers, Mohammed and Shaukat Ali, this "Khilafat" movement had attracted an unsavory mob of supporters. The acerbic Bengali writer Nirad C. Chaudhuri remembers Khilafat volunteers as "recruited from the lowest Muslim riffraff He feared that their rage would inevitably turn from the British to Hindus. Gandhi, on the other hand, threw his support behind the Khilafat movement: Years later Gandhi recalled Jinnah telling him that he had "ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he had done.

    At a follow-up Congress meeting in December , they often note, Jinnah drew jeers by referring to "Mister" Gandhi in his speech, rather than the more respectful "Mahatma. Jinnah was not about to encourage what he saw as religious demagoguery. The crowd's howls chased him off the stage.

    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition
    JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition

Related JINNAH’S VICTORY, PAKISTAN’S LOSS: The Poisoned Legacy of Partition

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved