Quaid-e-Azam, Partition and Pakistan - Ayesha Jalal - The True History - TPE

[@71espn]

Poora campaign iss basis par karna ki Hindus and Muslims are so different a people that they have to have different nations. Aur fir uske Ms Jalal bol rahin hai ki Jinnah ki saari politics federalism ki hai is just not digestable.

[@71espn]

@@Tkumar-ot8ip They can each do their work . We don't need to make this a news debate. It is academics and debating through books and articles is enough. Also I think the Pakistan experience is a platform for a free wheeling sort of conversation.

[@JBande]

I guess he wasnt federalist after pak was created... & those who came after him even more so.... some 50-100 yrs after all remaining archives r opened up, we will b wiser!

[@iynshabanerjee]

Ayesha Jalal has a romantic view of Jinnah, which hinders objectivity. She never questions the historical accuracy of 'Two Nation Theory', or if nationality should be merely religious, disregarding other identities like region, ethnicity, language, caste, and class. Identifying Indians as merely Hindus and Muslims is a colonial construct, and Jalal never questions why Jinnah embraced this colonial narrative in his politics. I am unpersuaded that Jinnah didn't mean nation in a Westphalian sense, as all his speeches from 1940 to 1946 are asking for separate nationhood and he uses the imagery of 'martyrdom', 'war' to achieve it. I agree with Ishtiyaq Ahmed that Jalal deliberately leaves out Jinnah's speeches in her work. Moreover, it was Jinnah who pressed for a division of the British Indian army. Accepting Cabinet Mission plan is cited as the only example to prove that Jinnah didn't want Pakistan. However, one must remember that Jinnah maintained in public that since province groupings have the right to secede in 10 years (as per CMP), he has taken the first step towards achieving Pakistan.

[@lindyswing4368]

If CMP was such a practical idea, one needs to ask why didn't they implement such a framework for Pakistan itself ? Why didn't East Pakistan get any autonomy ?

[@iynshabanerjee]

@@lindyswing4368 Jinnah conveniently lets go of his treasured ideal of provincial autonomy once in power. He forces Bengalis to speak Urdu, dismisses the provincial government in NWFP and Sind, assumes dictatorial powers as Governor General and runs a very centralized state. He even lets go of separate electorates for non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan, after championing for them for Muslims in undivivided India.

[@aranyasamaiyar9160]

Great analysis ! Wow accurate to the point Is there any way I can know you?

[@bharatravisekar3423]

So unconvincing. I really wanted to gain a new perspective on Jinnah and the partition of India. She is selecting only facts that suit her. What a waste of time.

[@AdnanAhmed-ht8ey]

​@@lindyswing4368 Because it was meant to defend Muslim rights in the context of a Hindu majority state.

[@matriputra2624]

57:00 So Nehru was planning a dynasty in 1947 so he allowed Partition to happen? So this lady is a serious historian in Pakistan... I wonder who the non-serious historians are...

[@iDeepakRana]

Haha. Absolutely. It's good to listen to her because she completely exposed her lack of ideas.

[@Atul-Kr-117]

true,I am not a Congress fan, hate them a lot but I would give credit where its due, They certainly didn't want partition and tried all diplomatic/civil channels to stop it. If Congress wanted Partition they would certainly have not brought the Muslims near Delhi and settled them. Ambedkar was right here.

[@muhammadaliclay8976]

hahahahahahahhaahahaha..munnay ko gussa aagya..

[@qurratulainzehra8760]

in pakistan? she's a mcarthur grant winner you burnt asses!

[@nacpatil]

@@qurratulainzehra8760 Pakisrtan will obviously give her biggest whatever posssible because she supports narrative! But most of the stuff is unsupported conjectures. Or psychoanalysis. Thats not history. I can say isne isliye ye kiya hoga. But no one can give proof of actual thoughts! History is dependent on actions and events not on personality analysis.

[@punjabimundaaa]

Jalal seems to insinuate the partition of Punjab/Bengal on Nehru's underlying desire for his own dynastic rule. This seems to be far stretched. She herself says in umpteen time during this video to bring "mawad" for writing history , does she have any material before claiming her hypothesis? We seem to forget, partition was a decision agreed by above all Sardar Patel, the staunch hindu. For a historian, she clearly is just speculating. Nevertheless, she has a right to "flippant" statements. Dr Ishtiaq Ahmads analysis seems more logical than Dr Jalal's in so far as partition is concerned.

[@hindustan8796]

U r right. She says it is her idea, in some contexts. What rubbish is she talking about. She has no substance, seems confused. How can her book be authentic. Where r the facts?

[@TheRamzi1st]

Read Books on Dr. Istiaq Ahmed and watch his KZbin he make more sense and he has proof and basis. She is a liar and refused to attained debate with Dr Ahmed.

[@hindustan8796]

@@TheRamzi1st u r right . I do watch ishtiaq ji. Also watch Rajeev dixit u tube. Jalal is a gone case just like imran khan.

[@rahultiwari-dx8qo]

​@@hindustan8796 she is married to an Indian who is nephew of Netaji Subhash Bose who has written many tests on Subhash babu ..you can make the connection

[@hindustan8796]

@@rahultiwari-dx8qo in that case even more accuracy is expected from her.

[@karmyogi-2.1]

From her body language it looks like she harbors hatred against Nehru/Gandhi and Congress. She conveniently forgets the Direct Action Day/Calcutta Killings, March 1947 Rawalpindi riots. She also forgets that most of the Congress leaders served jail sentences for opposing the British but Jinnah didn't spend a single day in jail. Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed seems more logical.

[@sarthakkukreti2444]

people forget that she is married to Subash Chandra Bose's grandnephew .... hence the inherent bias against Nehru specifically and the INC in general

[@MuhammadAhsan-qk3ik]

Read my comments ..she is a nonsense

[@george4vIogging]

Ayesha Jalal Vs Ishtiaq Ahmed Debate anyone?

[@vineetsinghgusain701]

Ayesha Jalal don't accept a challenge..... doctor sahab another level

[@vineetsinghgusain701]

@@ThePakistanExperience dear how can any one become political scientist without reading and researching history. She presented no points in downgrading doctor sahab points.

[@71espn]

@@ThePakistanExperience Well I think a debate should happen that's how people learn. But this isn't the platform for it. Academia is the place for it. Papers, articles academic seminars are the palce for it. Unfortunately for everyone neither of them work in Pakistan.

[@atiBan0]

@@ThePakistanExperience she is certainly not afraid - she is a scholar in her own right. But if a ‘political scientist’ makes observations about a situation which was of a political nature and makes observations about the main players involved ( with references - the same as are available to professor AJ ) then he should not be dismissed altogether. And yes that debate unfortunately won’t happen 😅🥴

[@what-kh8qo]

The Pakistan Experience saying that he’s not a historian so his argument is invalid is a complete cop out. It doesn’t invalidate his arguments at all. One, Historians don’t have a monopoly over the appropriate methodology of assessing past events. Second, how does she know how faulty or good Ishtiaq Ahmed’s methodology is. Summarily dismissing another viewpoint because it rankles with yours exposes one’s own hubris.

[@rishitbhushan3201]

57:05 Dynasty was established by Indira Gandhi not Jawaharlal Nehru. How could it have been in his interest to partition provinces for a dynasty which was going to be formed many years after his death. If it were his dynasty Indira would have been India's second PM whereas she was NOT EVEN MEMBER OF UPPER HOUSE Or LOWER HOUSE for 17 years while Nehru ji was PM. Partitioning provinces was based on Jinnah's demand for muslim majority contiguous areas forming a Muslim State why should have Congress let Hindu and Sikh majority region go to Pakistan. Why these provinces were divided can be understood simply by looking at demographics of provinces which weren't partitioned mainly Sindh. Historian is giving opinion based on political science without evidence and Political Scientist is giving facts on History and Political science with evidence. Waah kya scene hai!

[@Vk-sk7nm]

Yes Nehru died. People in Congress choose Indira because they thought she is a woman , so they can take advantage of her meekness and second that she had a legacy of being Nehru's daughter. But this woman Indira turned out a fierce leader. And we know what she did in 1971.( Read about Indira Gandhi Wikipedia )

[@strawberry7799a]

It annoyed me how Jalal rejected Ahmed’s arguments not by addressing the evidence but by saying he isn’t a historian so he’s not worth listening to. It sounds like she has an opinion on Jinnah and Nehru that she does not want to let go of no matter what evidence comes forth.

[@chandankumargantayat8926]

@@Vk-sk7nm sashtriji was the second pm. Agree old guards wanted to rule through the "gungi gudiya" as morarji desai would call her

[@bhavuksharma1731]

Ishtiaq Ahmed wrote the book Jinnah: His Success, Failures and Role in History which has completely demolished her imagination which she thought was history an absolute rubbish of an argument saying Pakistan was a bargaining chip of Jinnah. Besides she also isn't a historian 😂

[@Vk-wx8ls]

Foundation stone for dynasty rule was laid by Nehru when appointed Indira Gandhi as a minister in his cabinet

[@kartheeque]

She seemed insecure when Dhulipala was mentioned and stuttered. Probably she doesn’t have a proper response to his thesis. And her argument that Nehru divided Punjab and Bengal to maintain UP’s dominance, that was an ultimate joke. :D as if two nation theory was not a thing at all and the idea of partition came into Nehru’s cunning mind just like that! Overall, her Pak nationalist instincts are cluouding her judgements.

[@dollartreeshark6786]

Ishtiaq Ahmed knows dishonest Ayesha

[@yajursood4355]

UP even back then had twice the population of Punjab. Even then it would have had a dominant position.

[@lindyswing4368]

Why did it take so many years for someone to call out her bullshit narrative ? I can't believe I fell for it, I can't believe Jaswant Singh fell for it.

[@qurratulainzehra8760]

So she's a pakistani nationalist, what would you be then? she's right to point out the fact she's more credible as a historian than anyone from Pakistan and that bald guy you indians seem to be supporting a lot doesn't shed light on the loopholes of gandhi's personality, he never mentions that gandhi's been a racist and a casteist almost all his life and just before dying he's said to have repented and changed. His sex asharams where he used to exploit young women calling her bapu is all a reality but the bald guy never mentions it, so how is he not cherry-picking?

[@HusbandnWifeDuo]

@@qurratulainzehra8760 Exactly!

[@biggdaddyy]

Western Punjab + eastern Punjab = 14 crores (11+3) West Bengal + east Bengal = 27 crores (10+17) UP population = 22 crores Hindi belt population = 70-75 crores So UP would have still more population than Punjab and 5 crores less than Bengal but dominance of Hindi belt would still be there and if you add Maharashtra and Gujarat then both financially and politically dominance would be of cow belt (Hindi belt + Maharashtra & Gujarat) . So even if the partition would not have happened then also the scenario would have been the same. Nehru’s dynasty or say the Gandhi family dominance happened after Indira Gandhi and after nehru’s death Lal Bahadur Shashtri became the PM. Next time she will say “Direct action day” call was also given by Nehru and he was responsible for the blood shed. So all her claims are bogus.

[@azarkamal4477]

Hindi belt calculations incorrect. Punjab & Bengal together have a higher population than any so called "hindi belt". In reality there was only the Hindustani belt in the north of South asia. And within that there were different states & cultures.

[@71espn]

Why would the Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab and Bengal want to be the part of a country that was based on the premise that Hindus and Muslims are so different that they are different nations and cannot live together. They weren't blind to the vitriol of the Pakistan campaign and Pakistan ka matalab kya. How can she see so frivolously set aside that concern. Nehru, Patel and Azad weren't Jinnah, who was above everyone else and everybody had to follow it in the muslim league. They would lose their place if they did not heed the concerns of the people. Nehru did become the PM because he was the most popular leader but Patel , Azad , Rajaji and Dr Rajendra Prasad were of equal status in the Congress. Obviously in the end the responsibility to cede to the demand of Partition falls on the shoulders of the leader i.e. Nehru but in no way does that mean that it was a decision without a broad based consensus. I am sorry to say but it just feels like, Dr Jalal hasn't faced any competent or serious challenge to her scholarship before because her defence of her arguments is too half-baked whenever questioned even at the slightest.

[@shobhitsingh232]

Exactly . The lady has an image of jinnah in her mind for which she wants to ignore tangible direction of history which was witnessed by billions . She wants to present jinnah as a victim of islamic fundamentalism but the truth is he championed islamic fundamentalism .

[@dipakbose2677]

Ayesha Jalal is wrong to say that Bengal and Punjab were in a position to determine events in pre-partition years. After the arrival of Gandhi from South Africa, Bengal lost its position of importance. Punjab was never so important as the UP Muslims. if Punjab was important instead of Urdu Punjabi would be the national language of Pakistan. In 1947 both Bengal and Punjab were at the receiving end.

[@babababi7911]

Jinnah Simple demand was that the muslim majority regions should be separated from india. He never said that Pakistan is for muslims and india is for hindus. Infact it was the idea Of Allama Iqbal. That Muslim Majority areas on north west india are completely in Postiion to make their own country and they should make it and Jinnah acted upon his idea none of the both Persons called Pakistan for muslims only. The population exchange happened Punjabis only becauseof unfair division. All are later made up stories . Jinnah nor support hindu expulsion from Pakistan neither he invited indian muslims in Pakistan except some educational muslims from india because ppl native to Pakistan were tribal and less educated at that time so he invited some influential rich educated muslim families to settle in Karachi and run institutions + controll beaurucrecy he never claim Pakistan is land for muslims of india. UP muhajirs came in Pakistan way after Partition for Jobs only many of them returned back to india after certain period some remained here in karachi Pakistan

[@what-kh8qo]

Another important point Pakistanis seem not to understand regarding the inclusion of Sikhs in the idea of Pakistan is the history of intense animosity between Sikhs with Muslims. As a half-Sikh I know this only too well. Mughals are blamed for attacks on Sikh gurus and a lot else. The hatred and mistrust runs deep.....It's not a matter of simple politics ki Jinnah saab ne Sikhs ko include kyun nahin kiya, as if the Sikhs themselves had no agency of their own.

[@chandankumargantayat8926]

Yarr sikhs and hindus are like Nakhon and mans

[@sundareshkrishna6457]

Sikhs are ours bro….keep away…..

[@santoshkulkarni7561]

Another point Pakistan ignores is that, the would have treated Sikh the same way treated other minorities. They don’t consider Ahmadi a Muslim but they could have let them alone considering as minority at least. But they had humiliate and kill them.

[@sundareshkrishna6457]

They are my better half…. Love them

[@digitalstranger]

My dear half-sikh, I can't see any animosity between Sikhs and Muslims as far as Punjabi Muslims are concerned. Being a Punjabi Muslim myself, I find myself closer to a Sikh Punjabi than a Muslim from say Tamil Nadu or Bengal mainly because of the similarities and cultural ties with the Sikh Punjabis. If I was Jinnah, I would have focused more on keeping the Punjab united and securing Kashmir rather than thinking about Bengal and Hyderabad Deccan as these states were geographically far off and had little to share with Punjab. The partition is actually a division of Punjab and Bengal and the people who suffered due to this division are Punjabis on both sides of the border. As far as the animosity between Mughals and Sikhs are concerned, what have Punjabi Muslims got to do with that? We are not a party to what the Mughals did. You can't blame us for whatever happened between the Mughals and Sikhs.

[@mail2onkar]

Nehru spent 9 years in jail.. just want to know how much time jinnah spent in jail... 57:30

[@shahidminhas1682]

How much time Dr. Ambedkar spent in jail?

[@digitalstranger]

Jail is for criminals. Jinnah was a barrister and a politician, not a criminal🙂

[@shaantanuasthana969]

@@digitalstranger jinnah was a rascal he fled with his friends daughter just like your ancestors did like gazhnavi, ghauri, qasim

[@shubhamsharma8867]

​@@shahidminhas1682 his fight was against brits, upper cast hindus, Muslims, sikhs too. Gandhis thoughts on schedule casts were scary.

[@chandankumargantayat8926]

@@digitalstranger darbarion ko arrest nahi karte. Ppl who prostrate before the colonists are rewarded. Nehru studied in Oxford and Cambridge still fought against the British.

[@Ravi-ot6xj]

She says Aurangzeb was not bigot even tho he imposed Jizya on non-Muslims apparently for 'political reasons'. And these people call themselves historians, give me a break!

[@priyamastibhati]

She is “sold” on the history whitewash job by Fraudrey Audrey Traschke - all paid for by the ISI.

[@Vk-sk7nm]

Ravi we read a wrong history. Aurangzeb was peacelover who never misbehaved with Hindu girls. Even whenever he saw Hindu woman he lowered his gaze. He gifted his all money to Poor's. He never imposed zaziya on non Hindus. You see we read wrong history.

[@powerofnature4799]

@@Vk-sk7nm haa haa , hamare gurus aur sahibzado ko shaheed fir shayad us tym koi aur raza hoga usne kiya hoga

[@aatmaDipoBhava]

​​@@Vk-sk7nm your description exactly matches the left hand man of Imran Khan Niazi.... the chief guest 😂 Minyaa Mithoo wrath of underage HINDU girls was invited to speak on a conference on forced conversion of minorities.... ye iss jamaane me ho rha to socho uss jamaane me kya hota hoga....itne gande galeej hypocritical bunch of mutated tribals under Islam.

[@aatmaDipoBhava]

I am not applying denail negation or cancel culture... I have found her more like Dolores Umbridge whose minister of magic was jinnah.

[@what-kh8qo]

I found Ishtiaq Ahmed’s analysis more straightforward, honest and trenchant. Ayesha Jalal’s arguments are all based on half truths and cherry picking of facts. She loses all credibility when she comes up with nonsense like Nehru let partition happen so the Nehru dynasty could prosper (disregarding Jinnah’s consistent and well known espousal of the Two Nation Theory), and that partition is all regional ‘masla’ not a Hindu-Muslim problem. A whole lot of creative culpability contortions, not much truth.

[@AKumar-co7oe]

@Feudal Revisionist liberalism for her = whitewashing how communal the muslim league was, states rights my arse. States have more rights in India than Pakistan today.

[@qurratulainzehra8760]

Thats only because you're an indian;)

[@what-kh8qo]

@@qurratulainzehra8760 perhaps partly, but not only. I have no problem with any views if they're substantiated in fact. Here you have a clever historian cherry picking facts that suit her and dismissing everything else as nonsense and refusing even to engage with it.

[@nacpatil]

@@qurratulainzehra8760 Indians need fewer or almost no props to support their arguments. On your side everything is propped up! Who was Jinha? Did he even fight for freedom. Rather muslim league healped britishers till freedom. So basically the india fought to get freedom and the only thing jinha did was do politics to get pakistan. Bunyad me he problem hai thats why fruits are bitter now.

[@arifhossainrubel4791]

@Feudal Revisionist you mean 'ideology'.

[@sudhirsingh-bf8qt]

She is a perfect example of a revisionist historian. 0:07 She thinks, a movement which was founded on the basis of religion and majority vs minority coexisting together, as a movement of centre vs state power and cites cabinet mission plan to support it 😅. Cabinet mission plan came at a fag end after Jinnah’s two nation theory gained coin… it didn’t come to India bcoz Jinnah was demanding more power for states n a weak centre …

[@sudhirsingh-bf8qt]

After Nehru and Patel saw that partition was inevitable they did what was best for their constituents ie demanded partition of Punjab n Bengal. Hindu minority didn’t want to live with Muslim majority … after 75 years nehru has been proved a visionary in how Pakistan has treated its minorities

[@Mira-pm3ni]

​@@sudhirsingh-bf8qt huh ! Jinnah's Islamic country couldn't even give justice to Bengali Muslims . It was Nehru's daughter who liberated East Pakistan aka Bangladesh 😂

[@katewinslet4668]

Interview was good but Ayesha Jalals failed to give the response on ishtiaq Ahmed's question. She should provide logics instead of simply cancelling someone calling him political scientist. Whatever he is , historian or political scientist, is a great contribution to partition history research. She should accept someone's hardwork and appreciate others instead of getting insecure. Unfortunate enough:)

[@71espn]

It is good that Ms Jalal has a very different view on partition, Jinnah and the role of the British in Partition which I disItagree with but understand. But to say that Nehru had a role in partition in order to create a dynasty is just RSS logic. Indira was a part of Congress ever since her childhood but she never became a minister in Nehru's cabinet. Nehru was succeeded by Shastri who appointed Indira to his cabinet as the I and B minister. Indira was called a goongi gudiya in that cabinet alluding to her insignificance. When Shastri died it was something called the syndicate which had the leaders like Kamraj and morarji Desai, who installed Indira to be a puppet of theirs. This happened because the most appropriate leader at that time, Kamraj was not fluent in Hindi at all as he was a Tamizh. But Indira came into her own and in 1969 the PM herself was expelled from the party. But later a majority of the Congress delegates especially the younger ones supported Indira and the party split. From here on it is undeniable that with time Indira grew authoritarian and did want here son succeed her and brought in the dynasty corruption. For all the academic work that MS Jalal has done and then to speak the same language as the BJP IT cell based on absolutely nothing is quite disappointing and disturbing.

[@kokuyocamlin07]

Well at the end of the day Muslim League's and RSS's thinking was same. So even subconsciously she finds their narrative to be more believable/relatable. She also looks back at the history with same lens.

[@manassinghi2376]

But the population of UP has always been greater than Punjab and if we take bengal so although it has a greater population than up but its still less than the entire Hindi speaking belt ;and if she means economic dominance even then Maharashtra and Gujarat would have dominated in a United India not Punjab and Bengal

[@biggdaddyy]

Population of West Bengal - 10 crores Population of UP- 22 crores UP is the most populated state and political dominance in India is of Hindi belt or say cow belt if you add Maharashtra aur Gujarat too . This cow belt is also financially dominant. Even if Punjab was united it could have never dominated politically or financially. India is huge and no one state can dominate India .

[@Pradeepgoyal]

She has no facts. Just BS.

[@nitishsaxena1372]

I see few holes in her arguments but I always appreciate a civil discussion with serious scholars even if I disagree with them. Now have a podcast with Ayesha Siddiqa.

[@ANAND...TIWARI]

We Indians always laugh when we hear from you that the present situation in India is similar to that of Pakistan.😂

[@neerajarora4113]

yes if it is constitution wall is playing its role with the time so no power of fundamentalist can survive in india modi is surviving on the conecpt of devlopment and when he will not produce he will be automatically out of the picture

[@ANAND...TIWARI]

@@neerajarora4113 Right!

[@priyashgawande161]

@@neerajarora4113 but modi let this. Intolerance and hatred to be nurtured in our society Constitution and govt cant do anything of this people only become intolerant and hateful

[@vasiligoyal7956]

On point

[@vasiligoyal7956]

On point 👉

[@bilalakram5827]

The speaker appears to be hypocritical with his words. You are referring to Sir Ishtiaq Ahmed as a conspiracy theorist. As such, you were that person who respectfully invited him during a lockdown, stating, yes sir, you're right, I've read that in your book (Ishtiaq Ahmed)'s. It was you who looked very extraordinary when it came to judging and believing. It was you who was quoting his book the garrison state. Your words and behavior have changed with the changing of your guests. You have degraded a writer, a teacher, a Political Scientist, and a historian, by calling him a conspiracist, who is still in this field more than your age. Will you do this same with Madam Ayesha Jalal? or any other scholar/guest, and will call him/her Conspiracist?

[@bilalakram5827]

@@ThePakistanExperience 1:03 watch it bro

[@sherazahmed5586]

“There is nothing new in this world, except the history you do not know of” - President Harry S Truman

[@arjitas]

I think Ayesha Jalal does not have much basis in facts to back her assertions. To say that Nehru knew that his family would rule for decades after he was gone and so he wanted partition is nonsensical. That Sikhs did not get anything is also flawed. They of course are still persecuted in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but they are a respected community in India. She is biased against India and does not even understand what secularism and a multi-cultural society means.

[@belglass123]

She need to live in India for few years to understand the real picture. She is just revising the old stories told by their elders.

[@Mira-pm3ni]

She comes from a conformist society so don't expect much . They have been taught in one way .

[@aishaahsan4961]

@@Mira-pm3ni oh. So if we are taught this way, then what way are you taught? Care to shed some light on what is happening in punjab and to sikhs in this day and age.

[@yt_bharat]

Can’t u see she is constantly stammering and in agony when questioned? Army wale pappa aur dr ishtiaq ko bhi to harana hai narrative me

[@arjitas]

@@aishaahsan4961 from what I hear, even the few Sikhs still living in Pakistan are targets for conversions where even the head Granthis' daughters have either converted or been kidnapped. In India, we have had a Sikh (and multiple muslim) president, Sikh prime minister, multiple chiefs of the army staff and many more prominent Sikh citizens at all levels. I would actually love to know what is happening that is positive to Sikhs in your country. Also, if your heart bleeds so for the Khalistanis, why not carve out a Khalistan from the Pakistani Punjab. After all the Sikh kingdom of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh had Lahore as its capital. Nankana Sahib, Kartarpur sahib, all are in Pakistan. I am sure that will be a great beginning for the Sikh country and if you are truly their friend, start there.

[@ratangangopadhyaygangopadh9826]

Why does she fumbles to substantiate her theories with references? She should go through the books written by Prof. Ishtiaque Ahmed of Stockholm University, Sweden. Madam, Please try to call spade a spade and do not ever say Nehru opted for partition when played puppet in the hands of the British Govt.

[@shubhamrawat530]

Ma'am NEHRU was originally from J&K not from UP. and INC UP m sbse kmjoor h.. INC is more popular in SOUTH INDIA than UP.. Who made her historian yr??

[@rksingh9186]

Ayesha jalal seems to be a very fickle historian. She looks very slippery. Whereas Ishtiaq Ahmed looks firm and well researched.

[@RedoakFilmCompany]

I can't agree more...

[@gurkiratsingh2792]

She is a weak Historian. She doesn't want to tell history she jus wanted what she thinks about the events in her own perspective. Totally biased!!

[@qurratulainzehra8760]

oh shut up,indian historians like mridula mukherjee are even more fickle but you don't notice that;)

[@ghulammahboob4343]

She stands much higher than dr Ishtiaque as historian and academician. More unbiased and balanced analysis.

[@rksingh9186]

@@ghulammahboob4343 🥳🥳🥳

[@maheshmatam6666]

Actually I am glad Pakistan separated and making a mess of itself. Just imagine 40% people wanting Sharia or getting madras’s education in United india. It could be Nehru’s proclivity and Patels arrogance, they saved us from taking india into a drain. Thank you Ayesha, I accept your theory that congress made it impossible to live together. I thank both Nehru and Patel.

[@vishalpandey1268]

Agree

[@tanur1248]

Thank God

[@IqraIsmailChadhar]

they are just pressure groups, nothing more

[@atulyasworld2799]

😅agree she says Nehru made Pakistan ,what a new discovery 👏

[@neilmichael2676]

Loved this interview. I feel Ms. Jalal is all over the place when it comes to Jinnah and Gandhi. Leadership is given to you by the people, you need to earn it from them. People saw that Gandhi was willing to walk the talk, which Jinnah wasn't. He was ready to suffer just as they were, beaten and went to jail multiple times, something that Jinnah never did.

[@owaisahmad7841]

Brilliantly conducted interview. One cannot question the depth of knowledge of Professor Ayesha Jalal. She provides a number of insights and lot of fresh perspectives. Also would commend the host who clearly has different views but is open minded and lets the guest speak and explain her views properly. Just the way an interview should be conducted even if there is a divergence in views of the host and the guest.

[@sanasama2209]

The title should have been 'Government Sponsered Historian' 😅

[@KAFIR-E-AZAM786]

Jinnah was a constitutional and a person of ethics, Jinnah was the one who traped his friend's 16year daughter and ran away and converted her when he was 42. He was a true follower of rasool and sunnat e rasool....man of ethics my foot....A person who enjoyed Hamburger and whiskey, walked in a mosque with a shoe demanded a holy land for muslims.

[@muhammadaliclay8976]

hahahahahahahhhahahahaahhahahahahahahaahahahha...

[@muhammadaliclay8976]

so sharukh and salman and amir khan are not muslims now...

[@KAFIR-E-AZAM786]

@@muhammadaliclay8976 if Ahmedis r muslim for pakistanis they r muslims too.

[@Mira-pm3ni]

In India people are divided on Nehru and Gandhi . Gandhi the father of the nation . The person whose birth day is celebrated internationally as World Non-violence Day . Yet people question his intention and expose his dual lifestyle whereas in Pakistan people are literally forced to praise Jinnah . I have seen so many videos where many are indirectly questioning Jinnah's intention but none have guts to speak against Jinnah directly . How can anyone blame Nehru when it was Jinnah who wanted a nation for Muslims. Nehru was secular . This Jalal questions Nehru's intention for wanting partition so that his dynasty can rule but not questioning the other possibility that Jinnah may have wanted a nation based on religion so that he would become the PM . That time Nehru had more chance becoming PM in independent united India .

[@safaanrashid1813]

Please try to bring her and Ishtiaq Ahmed in the same podcast. That would be wonderful.

[@mab1]

🙈

[@Moe.allama2023]

she is not willing to face him

[@powerofnature4799]

Dr ishtiaq ne to kaha hai k kayi podcastors ko k unko ayesha jalal k saath debate mei le k aaye. Par madam ki jhoothi fairytale history ka pulanda chur chur ho jaega, shayad isiliye madam face nahi karna chahti

[@rranjan3439]

Brother, if you can bring Dr Ishqiat Ahmed and Dr Ayesha Jalal on one panel ,that would be a great discussion indeed. We can understand the partition from two different perspectives at a time from two distinguished and renowned authorities on the matter. If at all you can do this...that would be great achievement from your side and a great show for us as well. Thank you.

[@gilespanaceas7014]

She will never appear with Ishtiaq Ahmed as he blows away all her ideas with facts ... she's just another bull$hitter with no substance to the ideas she promotes ...

[@lordvondon]

No she won't come. She is a joke in the name of intellectual. Professor Istihaq has publically challenged her, she is bigot and she knows what she has been doing over the years.

[@Sabiqoon-w8y]

Rocky and Ivan drago yeah looking foward to it

[@MB-xn2xq]

It's very easy to divide people based on language, region and religion. Takes great men & their vision based on love & respect like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Azad & many more to unite a country as diverse as India :)

[@qurratulainzehra8760]

lol, very easy to explloit ppl the way your fake saint exploited mazhabis (lower caste sikhs) and deobandis (far-right Muslims)

[@qurratulainzehra8760]

and, we know the reality of your fake saint who was openly racist towards the blacks of Africa and dalits of India; ambedkar never liked him so using both their names in the same sentence is a sin you duffers commit:)

[@ThinkDeep_Official]

Majority of the people easly tilted towards and the follow the slogan of tribalism, ethnicity and love for their group and hate another group. British imperialist at the end while forced to leave India divided India. Mahatma Ghandi, Maulana Abul kalam Azad, Maulana Johar , Hasrat Mohani , and Pandit Nehru struggled and sacrificed to get the Independence of India from Brtish . At the end , Muhammad Ali jinah ( main role , Nehru and patel agreed for divided India whereas Maulana Azad & Mahatma Gandhi were having staunch stand for United India.

[@MB-xn2xq]

@@ThinkDeep_Official so if you listen to Ishtiaq Ahmed sir, he mentions that Congress was trying for a united India till as late as April 1947. Unfair to blame Nehru & Patel for the partition, they tried till they could for a united India.

[@MK-yg7zf]

Lolz.

[@3333teebee]

Ayesha Jalal, I would love for you to have a similar debate with Istiaq Ahmed on some finer points about 2 state theory that you chose to omit here.

[@abcxyzpqr09]

The sheer breadth of guests and topics on your podcast is commendable and you are one real informed and educated interviewer whether it is intellectual discussions like this or your other pop culture type discussions. Prof.Jalal of course is great as always ,but aap bhi kam nhi ho.. Love and respect from India

[@binakhimji6509]

Ye aurat fraurd hai . Tum aman ki asha vale bevkoof indian ho.

[@SagnikSanyal88]

Ok ... I get the feeling that Madam Jalal is saying that Partition happened due to Nehru's politics whereas Jinahh sahab wanted an undivided India with strong federal power to the states ....but that nullifies everything stated in the two nation theory which serves as the very basis for the formation of Pakistan.... why call Direct Action day then ? If this is what is being said then this is distortion of history .

[@redoctober4071]

When she said "Pakistan banaya punjabiyon ne" bhai maaro mujhe maaro 😂😂

[@shaam7433]

Pakistan Bihari aur bangalion ny banaya its true ..but punjabion ka khoon 1947 main boht nikla (on both sides) i m punjabi by the way

[@Galaxy-xg8dt]

yeh syed kha per tha phir...

[@SelfSeeker]

Pakistan banaya muslims from UP and Bihar, who voted for it and never migrated and Hindus were not allowed to vote. Chutiyapa

[@ZAIN9858]

I am loving it. Jug jug jiyo Shehzad bhai. Finally. Thanks for bringing such amazing guests. Next please do one with Professor Zizek and Chomsky.

[@rahultiwari-dx8qo]

@@ThePakistanExperience lage rahe ek na ek din chomsky bhi aayega

[@faisalzaman6639]

Kudos for organizing the podcast. One thing which I found problematic here was that honorable scholar dismissed an opposing view simply by saying that Ishtiaq Ahmad is not a historian and I won't even entertain what he says. I believe that was not pleasant to hear. Claims should be based upon arguments and no attempt should be made to discredit anyone without proving it first. After all it is history we are talking about which is not a handmaiden of anyone. Academic and scholarly temperament would warrant a response based upon arguments rather than utter dismissal in a tone similar to religious orthodoxy in our country which assumes to itself the sole custody and right to religious knowledge. This thing should be avoided by scholars like Ms Jalal. Her academic achievements are second to none and I have said what I felt with absolute respect and regard. I hope it is taken in the same sense.

[@abhiinavpurwar]

Well articulated.

[@priyamastibhati]

Halal seems to be a fraud.

[@priyamastibhati]

Jalal.

[@moidalam6275]

@@priyamastibhati Halal sounds correct. She is presenting the Halal version of Jinnah

[@Mira-pm3ni]

​@@moidalam6275 😂😂😂

[@artsybt6015]

Shahzad this was amazing. I have been trying to find some time to just sit back and listen to this podcast ever since you announced about ayesha jalal. Today i finally got it and absolutely loved this.

[@irfact398]

All we need is unbiased historian who's ishtiq Ahmed ❤

[@SanjayTiwari-bh8rd]

A debate of Ayesha Jalal and Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed would be fantastic learning.

[@HKG432]

Her premise regarding if West and East Pak were not created, would Nehru party be so dominant is completely flawed? Hyderabad says Hi Bangladesh says Bye

[@aimengoraya]

Great podcast. Looking forward to more podcasts with Ayesha Jalal. Just one thought: Maybe I didn't listen to this very attentively, but I think kaafi perhi likhi disscusion thi, and lots of discussion points were taken forward assuming that audience already knows a lot about Pakistan-india history. I think I need to go back to older TPE podcasts on partition history.

[@Atul-Kr-117]

Lovely whitewashing of Jinaah and the Muslim League. Istiaq Ahmed said it in on podcast only-"If once you claim its going to be a state for Muslims, how can you take back that claim and then say,now its for everyone". And here she says it meant different things for different people, yes it did, but the basic premise remained that its a state for Muslims only.. Once you have established that,how can anyone say that Jinaah didn't want that. @Shehzad Your pod with Ishtiaq seemed more real than this one.

[@BashirAhmad-r9l]

Respected madam I m wordless to praise your research what a realistic approach you have for history compliments to you

[@sudheerkumar4421]

bro dont discount istiaq ahmed sir's research...ms jalal even refused to debate him on a few occasions before at a lit fest....she is saying as if british on the whole wanted to keep india together which contradicts her own statement regarding multiple perspectives and power centers in the british raj administration itself(how convenient)...ishtiaq ahmed built his theory on his assumptions and research and she on hers...im fine with both and thank u for mentioning him on the podcast...:) i thought u wouldnt!!

[@vineetsinghgusain701]

Exactly

[@sudheerkumar4421]

@V G by assumptions I meant tht the author has to take liberties when the facts are not sufficient to discern politics of the time...and ms jalal's bs theory didn't convince me one bit either....shezhad didn't do the required homework to interview established academics like her...which I don't mind but conversations like these are very one-sided and very accommodating...shezhad should do a better job as he grows his base...

[@khalidjamal671]

Some people do something different to be get popular and she is one of them . If she want to popular it would be batter for her that she would be a pop singer.

[@rahulnkulkarni]

Sometimes I feel she shows attitude that she is only right not ready to lesson other thoughts. Saw her few interviews. Other guest on this channel are very down to earth except this

[@vijaykumar-bd6ko]

who made her historian ?ispr

[@narenderdhanda]

Division of Punjab and Bengal toh zaruri tha if you are dividing a country on the basis of Religion.. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed ke arguments mein zyada dum hai. Agar Sikhs Pakistan ka support karte toh abhi tak Convert ho chuke hote..

[@vineetsinghgusain701]

Aur aaj ke haal pakistan ke dekh ke... I know sikhs they will be much better with india. Par agar sikh pakistan mein hote toh fir pakistan ka bada tudka india mein hota.

[@vineetsinghgusain701]

@Mohini S dear humans were killing humans

[@onenation8891]

@Mohini S killing Punjabis? is that why 56% of Pak population is Punjabi? Come on don't be too ignorant

[@sewaligoswami781]

@@onenation8891 99% of pakistani punjabis are muslims. Cmon bro! Dont be so lame

[@braveheart8318]

@@sewaligoswami781 what is the % of muslims in east punjab?

[@ManishKumar-zj5wq]

She is not a honest historian. Please note that the moment the interviewer asked her about Mr Jinnah forcing Urdu on Bangladesh, she swept the issue under the carpet. Any objective of the Partition written from either side of the border will come to one conclusion: Jinnah was the divider-in-chief. Agreed there were fanatics on this side too, but the leaders of the Congress like Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru we're secular. They may have ideological and political differences with Jinnah, but they loved Muslims, Hindus and all other communities, whereas Jinnah played into the hands of Churchill to wreck personal revenge against the two stalwarts. Any objective historian will tell you that Jinnah played to the gallery to venge his ego. Till then Muslims and Hindus were living together for centuries with the occasional fights.

[@ThinkDeep_Official]

Why did you forget the role of Maulana Abul kalam Azad ( Master mind of cabinet mission plan ) ? Among Mahatma Ghandi , Nehru ana Patel, Maulana Azad never agreed with divided india.

[@kasisv3846]

Good observation

[@sidheart7447]

Thank warna Mera time waste hota 🙏

[@AjitJoshi686]

@@ThinkDeep_Official why didn’t Gandhi fast upto death against partition? That’s the question intriguing me.

[@DipakBose-bq1vv]

@@AjitJoshi686 Gandhi, Jinnah and Ambedkar were British agents and they wanted Partition to please the British.

[@dextermatrix3452]

The Pakistan Experience every podcast session is amazing and something new to know and really good work bro and keep it up . much love and respect from BILBAO spain.

[@ammarashariq4044]

This was so interesting! Thank you for doing this looking forward to more of your work!

[@bilal_ahmed1011]

Seldom is a conversation so powerful, subtle, engaging, academically sound and enthralling all at the same time. But when you have Ms Jalal, it becomes but a cake walk. Thank you very much for this.

[@thetirelesscrusader4745]

I salute this brave lady. we need more people like her. she must be given the task to write the correct history.

[@shobhitsingh232]

Indian here . A question to Pakistanis watching the podcast do you believe what she is saying to be true ?

[@A.J.54]

There are many so-called facts which are laughable. She says Nehru was responsible for partition so that his dynasty could rule India ! A history professor has tried to write history like a fiction, that's what one can conclude after listening to her.

[@sudheerkumar4421]

ms jalal blames everything on nehru...but it was punjabi hindus and sikhs and bengali hindus who were demanding partition based on the same logic forwarded by jinnah tht muslims were a separate nation...he fought elections on this thin line and his politics obviously was equally responsible for the communalisation of punjab and bengal politics...

[@dollartreeshark6786]

Why would Hindus go with Muslims who have been forcing on the former for more than 1000 years before British.

[@sarthakkukreti2444]

people forget that she is married to Subash Chandra Bose's grandnephew .... hence the inherent bias against Nehru specifically and the INC in general

[@sudheerkumar4421]

@@sarthakkukreti2444 i knew who she is married to and yeah,this irrational hatred towards nehru makes sense...bose's fanboys will go to any lengths to malign nehru...haha

[@basmahriaz4349]

Excellent discussion but this was just a warm-up. You must have more podcasts with Ayesha Jalal, particularly one on Fatima Jinnah.

[@parvendramotla2311]

If the muslim league and Pakistan love so much Sikhs then why no Missile and Historical Monument for Bhagat Singh and Maharaja Rangit Singh ji who save Punjabis from Afgani attack and gave Punjab peace for so long. This is the Hypocrisy in all pakistani that they have some imaginative love for some but does not show on grounds..They name all their missile

[@parvendramotla2311]

All pakistani missile are named on Afganis and love Sikhs who saved punjab from Afgani...If this is not Hypocrisy then what is.....

[@parvendramotla2311]

Muslim league demanded separate electorate yet they were suffers, what a logic this is....

[@parvendramotla2311]

This lady historian argues that Muslim league and Jinnah did not want a separate state and this was forced upon by Congress before riots took place then what was Lahore Resolution which was adopted by Muslim league on 22 March 1940 and what was written in it. Her whole argument is based upon slectivism....

[@rksingh9186]

Ayesha seems to give an impression that she is in a hurry to escape - after bluffing

[@saquibali3246]

The people of knowledge are sceptical to show-off their credentials among the rank & file. So they just choose selective arguments to remain safe side before the general aura

[@SAV743]

A big clash between Pak makers n breakers n now intellectuals are breaking Pak at ideology n values

[@naureenyaqub7180]

No she speaks like that …

[@Akvlogs_india]

Joke of the Century: Ayesha Jalal is a historian. 😂😂

[@NileshKumar-Dl1wli]

Inke jaise historian har gali me mil jayeinge...shayad isse thoda aur behtar.... ek dam wahiyat....zero knowledge about indo pak partition.....

[@FawadMasud]

Somehow I heard your podcast with Ishtiaq Ahmed first and looked convinced where he countered Ayesha Jalal's many theories when she has written without any solid reference and here you have almost mentioned him in a very hypocritical way when she mentioned him as a political conspiracist. You should have encountered her with strong questions but you followed here. You are better than this,

[@ordinarycitizen7743]

Punjab had Unionist Party's rule before the partition which was a feudal dominated pro-Congress party and was against the partition of Punjab and India. She also doesn't mention the desire of Punjabis to rule Pakistan after partition, despite being in a minority which resulted in the events of 1971. It appears that Ms. Ayesha wants Punjabis on the right side of history.

[@hshakeem]

Muslim League won all the seats in 1946 elections in Punjab.

[@muhajir-hindustani]

السلام علیکم آج پہلی دفعہ یہ پروگرام مجھے بہت بہت اچھا لگا ! محترمہ عائشہ جلال صاحبہ سے باتیں سننا سیاست کی ادنی سی طالبعلم ہونے کے ناطے میرے لیے ایک انتہائی معالوماتئ تجربہ رہا🫶🏼 اس براڈ کاسٹ کا ایک ایک لمحہ میں چاہتی تھی کہ بس محترمہ عاشہ جلال بولیں اور کوئی درمیان میں بات نہ کرے اور میں سنتی چلی جاؤں۔ ا للہ تعالیٰ سے میری دعا ہے اللہ تعالی انکو صحت تندرستی والی زندگی عطا فرمائے اور خاص طور پر ہم پاکستانی بلکہ تمام دنیا ان کے علم سے فیضیاب ہوسکیں ❤️🙏❤️آمین

[@fahadjawaid3569]

Ayesha Jalal ki tehqeeq to apni jagah magar unki shusta urdu sun kar bhi dil khush hogaya

[@shayanali4442]

I thought, I am the one who is noticing that 😅

[@irfact398]

Kya matlab?

[@AA-kd4kd]

This was short. Really liked the discussion about regionalism vs centre. It's true Nehru wanted a strong centre (and was the one who caused Cabinet mission plan to fail) but I think that was because he wanted a centrally planned economy and a Socialist state and not because of his own dynasty. I also personally think Jinnah was an anglophile. I don't think he had any regard for his own Gujarati identity. (My personal opinion).

[@71espn]

Without a strong centre there would be no India. We would have been another playground for the cold war. And it's it as if federalism is non existent. States did have considerable power. Time and again people forget that Nehru, and the cabinet were elected through the ballot and a universal adult franchise. They responded to the demands of the people. The best example is the formation of linguistic states and the backtrack of Congress from Hindi imposition much like that in Pakistan. The constitution stipulated that English will be phased out gradually and hindi would become the only official language but that hasn't happened. Instead more and more languages have been made national languages, the number being 22 at present.

[@strawberry7799a]

Jinnah was also a hypocrite on the matter of centre v provincial autonomy. He supported provincial autonomy as leader of AIML, but once he became GG of Pakistan he made a very strong centre and deprived provinces of almost any powers.

[@bronxbull]

India is the centre and centre is India. India ll always be well governed only from Delhi and never in a federal set up

[@khanjehangir60]

Great to listen to her, disagreed with her view "its wrong to blame army for their notorious role infact it was only Ayub not army" Since from the 1st M. Law untill now (Bajwa) its the whole army which has had fully resposible of all their political interfearence.

[@jamilhashim186]

Thank you very much for your very informative and very interesting program on the history of division of India and contribution of Qaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

[@swapandas9433]

Ms.jalal is more interested to project her version as history.

[@zaidkhankhan8390]

I am from India i like yr podcast as i know very much about Pakistan view and many things about partition and view of Muslim and Hindu on partition 😊

[@kanchhediachamaar9289]

Prof. Jalal and Prof Ishtiaq Ahmad have views on the history of Partition that aren't exactly consistent with one another. Perhaps they should be invited to face one another.

[@harisadu8998]

She has refused already. Not surprising.

[@strawberry7799a]

She does not even address his arguments in a neutral forum. She dismisses his credibility and refuses to address the arguments. I doubt she will be willing to talk to Ahmed face to face.

[@kanchhediachamaar9289]

@@strawberry7799a perhaps Dr Ahmed's book should be mailed to the head of the history department at Tufts university asking the head to justify letting Ayesha jalal continuing to teach at Tufts if she fails to address questions on her scholarship.

[@bhaskermisra]

A very outdated topic now but she is somewhat like romila Thapar reminisces the past-In the March 1947 riots, the Sikhs or Rawalpindi faced ahhihilation and large number of them left the district. Within a few weeks almost the entire Sikh population had migrated from the district. Rioting in Punjab started in first week of December in the district of Hazara. A Holy war was declared on Hindus and Sikhs. Sikh habitations were wiped out, Gurdwaras were desecrated. Rioting in Lahore was started in March 4 1947, it started out as stabbing and small incidents and spread out to become arson and murder. Soon after Muslims in Amritsar (muslims were about 40-50% of population before partition) went rioting, a mob tried to attack Golden Temple and were repulsed with a pitched battle fought between handful of Sikhs under Jathedar Udham Singh Nagoke.

[@rishitbhushan3201]

Ma'am UP dominated only after partition but what you should think about is, there were many more provinces which were by far dominated only by Congress. It was never a simple walkover for Muslim League in Punjab and Bengal, but there were many more provinces and princely states which all together had population much more than Punjab and Bengal combined where Muslim League didn't even exist. Its very sad that being a historian you are doing this mixing of facts with opinions & judgements and presenting a theory which could have logically never existed. 1946 Provincial Election:- Bengal: Muslim League - 113 Congress - 86 Punjab: Muslim League - 73 Congress - 51 Congress was never threatened of competition, it was only concerned of balkanisation of India due to Cabinet Mission Plan. Your superpower provinces along with their princely states had population of 9.56 Cr which was 25% of Indian population of which around 54% was Muslim. There was no threat to Congress rule untill Nehru was alive by any measure and this was evident by fact that Congress had clear majority in 1946 provincial elections nationally.

[@nikhilhembrom8952]

Uttar pradesh even in united india would have been 2nd most important province but still maharastra would have been industrial powerhouse of india

[@durjoybarua5341]

1:11:30 I think Ayesha Jalal mam is wrong here. Pakistan meant a lot of things to Bengalis in 1947. That meaning gradually changed in the next 24 years. The people who wanted an Islamic state for Muslims started to realize the importance of a secular state. Even in 71, most Bangladeshis didn't care about religion, which was a drastic change. Some Bangladeshis still think 1947 was a good idea, but most Bangladeshis do not. In 2021, we don't have Pakistan in our blood anymore. We have our own identity now,

[@Mira-pm3ni]

Imposition of Urdu language might be the reason for wanting a secular state .

[@durjoybarua5341]

@@Mira-pm3ni That's one of the reasons, the main problem was disparity. West Pakistanis treated the Muslims of East Pakistan like 2nd class Muslims. East Pakistanis contributed a lot to the Pakistan economy but didn’t receive their fair share. Plus what was promised in the Lahore Resolution in 1940 was never fulfilled. Pakistan was supposed to become a federation state like USA, but West Pakistanis didn’t fulfil that promise. In short West Pakistanis oppressed Bengalis in every possible way. As a result what needed to happen in 1947 happened in 1971.

[@meranaamjoker4569]

Even so called pakistani intellectuals are also reasonably radical 😀

[@salmanmalik-gq4pu]

Well organized podcast. The lady has a good research and her thoughts are rational and very close to reality.

[@akashkumar-ee7pw]

Ayesha Jalal is as usual a dishonest intellectual, of whose ilk we have preponderance here in India. promote revisionist history with justifying partition on religious line. Better to have saner voices as the likes of Dr.ishtiaq ahmed.

[@uknaas]

The PAF Commander Air Commodore Zafar Masood in Dacca was against military action. He advised Gen Yahya against it and refused to order the bombing of civilians. He was recalled and retired.

[@MK-yg7zf]

This is one of The Pakistan Experience's prized jewels of a podcast. Way to go, man.

[@ratangangopadhyaygangopadh9826]

She is not telling the truth about Jinnah. Prof.(Dr) Ishtiaq Ahmed has gone deep into the historical facts based on documents available in India, Pakistan as also as available with the India House in London and various other places.

[@MK-yg7zf]

@@ratangangopadhyaygangopadh9826 Of course Ishtiaq shb is every Hindutvadi's wet dream.

[@asim_m01]

Shehzad this is the best podcast on your channel. We did many readings of Ayesha Jalal for our course and this podcast helped me connect the dots around them. The cancellation of the conference on events surrounding 1971 was very sad news for the whole student body. Its podcasts like these that actually make us realize that sooner or later we will have to embrace the truths about history. Intellectual decolonization was also the main theme covered in Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj" and it would be great if you could cover Gandhi's perspective as well!

[@ijazahmed1193]

Ye buche he aap itna na uthao itne bare subject ko jis andaaz ma ye jnab apne tasuraat se push n pull kr rhe hain he needs an intensive n extensive training to handle .. like a man although he is a sweet voiced boy with smiles all the time whether he is in the pain of presenting of partitions..

[@prashantpatekar5656]

She is a better scholar than Architect of Indian Constitution to call Indian Constitution as Colonial Constitution😂 Great to hear this..Seems Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's opinion about this Historian is right.

[@nikhilhembrom8952]

C'mon Ambedkar studied actually american french British Irish soviet Canadian constitutions to write it

[@shivsharma883]

Brilliant, discussion. Liked it. People deserve better things and treatment.best wishes, bro.

[@tejaskulshrestha691]

1:03:53 How Cleverly Prof. Ayesha Jalal dodged the question asked regarding the writings of Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed citing he's a Political Scientist and not a historian. So what if he's a Political Scientist . What difference does that make anyway ?? As far as his research & works are based on fact he's at par with any other "Eminent" historian. As an Indian we had and still have many great writers who were not trained as a historian but produced some of the finest works on Indian History like D.D. Kosambi who was a mathematician & Dr. Ramachandra Guha ( Author of India After Gandhi ) who did his bachelor's and master's in Economics. Not good on Mrs. Jalals part. Every scholarly work should be appreciated.

[@singhparihar8530]

She is attention hungry nothing more

[@71espn]

@@singhparihar8530 I don't think she needs to that. It's just that for the first time another pakistani is challenging her scholarship. He hope she doesn't dismiss his work so frivolously and judge it for what it is.

[@sarthakkukreti2444]

people forget that she is married to Subash Chandra Bose's grandnephew .... hence the inherent bias against Nehru specifically and the INC in general

[@ielts3009]

Ma'am Jalal, i am thrilled to see this podcast mainly because I was born and grew up in the same road where Netaji Subhash lived. I have/had many friends who lived just a building away from the house, Allenby Road and I grew up in shambhu Nath Pandit st, the road leading from Netaji's house to the end of the road. My saute to you, Ma'am.

[@ibrahim75ful]

Zabrdast Shehzad. This is really wonderful, keep educating us through wonderful people in the podcast.

[@locomotive43]

I have pretty much watched all ayesha jalal interviews on entire youtube.lol. i could be her biggest fan..but I always have found her bit sympathetic to overall cause of Pakistan and muslims.. Pakistan type idea is way older than jinnah, iqbal or muslim league.. it is a state of mind of south asian muslims.. it goes back to at least early 18th century Shah Waliullah Dehlawi...

[@yashsrivastava5486]

Funny to see u have done so many podcasts on partition with Pakistani intellectualls ,and almost none of them i find the role of Sardar Vallabhai Patel which was one of the key figures in uniting different parts of India and Nehru's dysnatic aims would have also completed without the partition of india ,Jinnah would never been a great political figure in united india and I also majorly disagree about her whitewashing of Aurengzeb and left wing historians in India have given clean slate to Aurengzeb considering the fact there are so many dirty facts about him.

[@HusbandnWifeDuo]

As regards the tragic saga of East Pakistan, 'Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded" by Dr. Junaid Ahmed's sheds light on the baseless propaganda against Pakistan, the # of soldiers surrendering, the Indians arming Mukti Bahini, etc.

[@abdurrazzaq2314]

So far I am stuck at Professor Jalal's virtual background. I wanted the books to be real. :(

[@clashoflands]

😂😂😂

[@avishekbhattacharjee812]

Conspiracy theorists ko real books padne ki zaroorat nahi h

[@subhasisghosh66]

Shows how fake she is

[@sandipprabhu]

It's good to listen to intellectuals from Pakistan.

[@JBande]

What a pathetic guest... I guess another 50 yrs later, more wisdom will dawn! Gr8 effort though by interviewer to get the lady to confront counter views, she fails miserably to even b half decent to respond smartly to take counter views! I would request to explore Suhrawaardy role pre partition & an incident called Moplah massace historically!

[@prashantpatekar5656]

Interviewer asked her when Hindu Muslim rhetoric was played so much that it was too late by the time of 11 August speech of Jinnah ...She cleverly denies that.....When so much of massacre has taken place your afterthoughts become useless.When religion becomes bigger than Humanity things get out of control and catastrophies happen

[@lindyswing4368]

"People made of it, what they wished"..... Who put those ideas in their head Jalalji....

[@izzah310]

Making notes for me to look up . Ignore me ( too tired to get up and find notebook) - Fatima jinnah ayub khan pamphlet - bangladesh and ayub khan - separate electorate as a class concession - jinnahs position wanted to give up separate electorates

[@asadullah2516]

Wow, it was amazing, I watch every second of it. I mean hats off to you man, for bringing such good people. I have not watched any talk shows for the last two years but I watched it completely, very interesting. Thanks

[@ShyamRudraPathak]

Ayesha Jalal’s views are praiseworthy. Her views about the suitable language of education is very very important for India as well.