Check this out: www.arthistoryclub.com

F-dog: An interesting observation...come across this before. Why dont U elaborate?

pakistan was an economic movement of the muslim middle class in india against the hindu middle class......

Thank you for sharing the info., Labs and Arrack. Khiladi: Spiritual democracy seemed to be the case...

if one refers to secualrism in the Western sense, than Jinnah was not one... secularism from the western historical experience was a rejection of the church.. Islam, on the other hand, wth no theocracy, believes in spiritual democracy, which in my opinion, is what Jinnah believed in

Sophisty: I come from a family which is very heaviliy entrenched in Pakistan military for generations...but I am sad to state that Pakistan Army has done a lot of bad to the country...and here i am not even sparing the politians as well. Ayub Khan was among the first Generals who thought they could "run" the country in a better way, but history proves that the disintegration of the country into Pakistan and Bangladesh was mainly brought about by dictitorial rule of Ayub Khan. Some people praise Ayub Khan for his "economic policiies", but the way i look at it...there was systematic transfer of wealth from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) to West Pakistan (present day Pakistan) and his policies 100% fueled the uprising of bengalis against Pakistan. People like these who are ONLY bothered about their own well being and our busy looting wealth for their family are a curse of the nation...and sadly Pakistan has had far too many of these type. Somehow, I would not put Musharaf in the same category as the previous leaders...history would prove me rite or wrong but i think Musharaff is different from his predecessors!

Labs: I think you summed it very well. I do believe that the two very much had the same philosophy and vision for Pakistan! And your analysis of state of muslims in pre-and-post partition is very true as well. And agreed that Bangladesh could NOT have dreamed of freedom had Jinnah not been able to carve out a muslim land from India. What happened in India during the Bombay & Gujrat riots exposes its true colors of being "secular". And my question to Muslims of India is always...that could you ever dream of becoming the Prime Minister of India? I dont think so...yeah they have held ceremonial roles such as Presidents..and that to very much under the Hindu fundamentalist government of BJP...but no position of real authority!

yay, 50+ fellow villagers..

*** Do you guys think Jinnah and Iqbal saw eye to eye on the future of Pakistan? I think they had a similar idealogy.. Iqbal's poetry/ philosophy after all awoke the fervour in the common man's heart which enabled them to subscribe to Jinnah's dream..... a Secular State.. like India/ Turkey/ France.. may have some religious undercurrents but tries its best to divorce itself from any hint that it's influenced/ governed by religious ideals/ rules.. as it doesn't want to be limited by the church etc.. an Islamic state like Iran/ Pakistan.. is in theory at least bound to act/ pass laws according to (its interpretation of) Islam.. which may give it an excuse to exclude minorities (although this is not strictly Islamic).. *** U think Jinnah was against the idea of a Muslim state? I think Jinnah was in favour of a secular state as he did want a state for Muslims but wanted minorities to not be unwelcome... on India...I think it's pretty secular.. but with a strong Hindu theme... Jinnah recognised Hinduism and Islam will be uneasy neighbours.. I think Islam is the way forward... thanks to Jinnah Bangladesh is also separate from India.. and can therefore choose to retain its Muslim identity..a choice we wouldn't have had in India (as the current state of Muslims there/ in Kashmir shows)......as does the Bosnian example...... I'm grateful Pakistan exists... and I always think of something my grandparents said.. in pre-partition India.. if you wanted to be a doctor, there was little/ no chance of you getting into a good school/ medical school..even if your family could afford it.. the English were the upper class.. some favoured Hindus the second class.. Muslims did not get a look in.. and if there was a crime committed.. the nearest Muslim would get locked up.. I think we would be far far worse if we were part of the same country.. and if we were secular.. Pakistani Muslim identities would be eroded even further than they are today

Islamic with a healthy amount of secular is the way to go...to allow empowerment, freedom of the expression of thought (education, education, education!), to act upon building the country as was Jinnah's vision, and to contribute to the fulfillment of goals driven by patriotic/nationalist spirit. A cross between Turkey and Sudan would be great. Jinnah had incredible vision and I think his Islamic/secular views were incorrectly taken as "liberal" by the mullahs of the day. My dad is always praising Ayub Khan and his regimented, military logical approach. We can wish there were more competent leaders/decision-makers in Pakistan. On the other hand, despite only a handful of good ideas, the Bhuttos were a total sell out to the west. India is definitely secular but discrimination and the suppression of minorities abound in India. Jinnah wanted freedom of Muslim thought and expression...freedom to go about your day without being under the umbrella of constant distrust, scrutiny, and repressive rule. He wanted to open up the proverbial doors to Muslims to establish a foothold in the global arena at some point in the future...this was his vision, I feel.