Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Where we are?
Where we are?
—Yasser Latif Hamdani
From Daily Times:
Obama’s warming up to India has not gone down well with our super patriots, and rightly so. Despite 40 odd years of service to the US and now a decade-long alliance that has cost Pakistan many a life and limb, the US has now established a long-term strategic paradigm in South Asia, which sees India as a close ally and Pakistan as a nuisance at best.
Instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to understand why it is that we are increasingly unable to compete with our eastern neighbour, our super patriots have invented another self-defeating narrative. They want us to engage another 50 years in another mini-cold war around an imagined zero-sum game that pits Pakistan and China against the US and India. Even if the Americans were naïve enough to hold such ‘strategic’ hogwash as a legitimate view, neither the Indians nor the Chinese are going to buy into it. Contrary to what a naïve New York Times columnist recently wrote, the Indians know that the big truck their friend in Washington owns has a flat tyre and no spare.
This is the Asian century and enough people in India realise it, which is why there will be no confrontation between China and India — at least any confrontation that mirrors the Soviet-US clash. China is rising and the US is, at best, a fading power, in a position very similar to the British Empire after the Second World War. It will continue to be an important power like Britain but its sole superpower status has irrevocably been shaken. As it grows more multicultural, the melting pot will become less effective and consequently a more fractured polity is likely to hold the US back in the future. India therefore is more likely to play both sides instead of blindly jumping into bed with the Americans. Our response therefore should be similarly cautious.
That we have not thought things through is apparent even from our approach to China. There is little or no recognition in Pakistan that China’s might is derived not from its military but its economic might. Yet how many of our institutions of higher learning have programmes in Chinese language, culture and law? None. It is not enough that Pakistan will become a conduit of energy for western China and, subsequently, an international trade route. Pakistan must realise that it will be important to China only if it remains internally stable, united and moderate. For this to happen, Pakistan must choose a pragmatic path to international geo-politics. It can no longer fool itself with some Pan-Islamic ambition and pursue a policy of Muslim interests. Our military establishment’s cynical flirtation with Islamist groups is dangerous given the Islamist rebellion in some parts of China.
Pakistan faced the full force of Chinese pressure on the Lal Masjid issue where Chinese citizens were attacked by a band of brigands who were, for the most part, seen as a ‘strategic asset’ by our establishment.
Pakistan must realign itself internally to face external challenges and seize opportunities. The reason Pakistan was respected and sought after by the Americans in the 1950s, 1960s and some part of the 1970s was because we were ideologically soft but economically and socially a strong state. By the 1980s onwards, Pakistan has been ideologically hard but economically and socially a very weak state. In doing so we have not only alienated the Americans but our trusted friends such as the Chinese and the Turks. If things continue as they are, even the Saudis will leave us in the lurch.
If — and this is an almost impossible task — Pakistan can roll back project Islam of the Ziaist variety, which requires a major overhaul of our laws, education and media, and can present itself as a moderate, democratic and internally stable state, Pakistan is ideally placed to profit from the changing global economic and political scenario. As a long-term ally of both the US and China and having a shared past with India, Pakistan can either be doomed by history or use it wisely to create a state that exists for the benefit of its people. The latter course will not only keep Pakistan united but will allow it to become one of the most prosperous nations of this century.
However, none of this can be done if ‘independent’ courts in Pakistan sentence to death a mother of five for alleged blasphemy. In the coming days, brace yourself as the entire world condemns us for our barbaric treatment of women, and rightly so. We must make up our minds. Are we going to be a medieval dystopia that is a pariah country like the Islamic Republic of Iran — which is absolutely the worst place to live in, I can assure you — or are we going to be a normal state that the world can do business with? Those of you who question the abolition of the Blasphemy Law on religious grounds must be reminded of what a wise man once said, “Is this the first time in the history of legislation in this country that this council has been called upon to override Musalman Law or modify it to suit the time? The council has overridden and modified the Musalman Law in many respects.” The wise man in question was our founding father, Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He had also cautioned against the misuse of the original Blasphemy Law — Section 295 of the Penal Code — by saying, “We must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected.”
The critical factor missing in Pakistan right now is a leader — democratically elected and popular — who can play the role of a Mao or an Ataturk or a Lee Kuan Yew today. Orphaned soon after birth with Jinnah’s early demise, Pakistan has missed a legitimate strongman that India found in Nehru. I say a legitimate strongman because attempts by illegitimate tin-pots, such as Ayub, Zia and Musharraf, have only worsened our situation. That it has to be a strongman willing to put his foot down is also clear because nothing else will compose the differences of our fractured national identity or have the courage to take on the naysayers, the Islamists and the ethno-fascists who today pose a clear and present danger to this state and its writ. Abraham Lincoln played that role in the US. He was ready to go the extra mile to preserve the union because his integrity was unquestionable and that allowed him to take decisions that were necessary but unpopular such as the emancipation of slaves. Do we have such a leader in our midst, someone who is ready to take on the forces that seek to tear us asunder and then make us relevant in the new era of prosperity that is about to dawn?
Unfortunately, instead of seizing the moment, all our leaders are more concerned with the dictates of petty politics, which is neither democratic nor people-oriented. One had imagined that Zardari would — much like Heracles of Byzantium — make a surprising turnaround and show concern for the country, if for nothing else then his own legacy. Instead, sadly, he has failed to rein in opportunist elements within his own party and has persecuted instead those genuine people within the party like Sherry Rehman and Aitzaz Ahsan who could help him rewrite history. May he still find it in him to finally lead like a leader. May he roll back General Zia and his criminal assault on Pakistan decisively and not just by paying lip service to that very important goal. What is at stake is not just the future of Pakistani non-Muslims; it is the prosperity and progress of this nation.
The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Filed under: Pakistan
85 Responses to "Where we are?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- AKB
said @ ahem
I have never seen a bigger idiot than y... - RajTOO
said Tajender,
you copy and paste machine, do you even... - tajender
said rajtoo like anyother brhmnst u have nothing except... - RajTOO said Tajender is a pure Paki. Just because he copies an...
- ahem
said to rex
Monotheism is inherently totalitarian an... - ahem said tajender reveals himself as a tamilian muslim....
- RajTOO said Rex Minor wrote:
And I was under the...
- Rex Minor said PS
sorry for the wrong spells! I must not miss th...
- Rex Minor said And who should have thought that PTH article on "u...
- ahem said Pakistan and India both contain corruption. But In...
ylh writes:
“The only real comparison Pakistanis have in the Mahabharata is to Pandavas.”
Pandavas were not worshippers of an arabic allah. That alone makes your comparison just a smirky remark and nothing more.
to no-communal
Bakaasur had certain characteristics. Among which people do you find them more represented?
What ylh does not know: The pandavas came to this village and Bhima agreed to go as the next human offering to Bakaasur. What then happened to the demon need not be narrated. Pakistanis are producing Bakaasurs and not getting rid of them. The pak army and its tactical outfits and strategic partners and media-men are the Bakaasurs.
I don’t think so. I think I have hit a deep religious nerve.
Pandavas and Kauravas … Pakistanis and Indians…
Same difference.
@amar
From Pakistani viewpoint ylh is, probably unknowingly, right. The Pandavas were deprived of their rightful land. That’s what they feel about Kashmir.
YLH,
The apt comparison is not Pandav and Kauravs but Danavs and Manavs. And how could you forget the close relatives of Kauravs living in Kandhar ?. PMA is an honest Pakistani and lets appreciate his honesty and wait for solving K issue by end of Feb 39 , 7272 .
no-communal
What land , where were the Muslamans before attack and conquest of Sindh? Going by their argument , Indians have more claim on the land currently occupied by Pakisani people in the name of all that has roots in far away Arabia. The majority inhabitants of Pakistan belongs to Arabic Civilization and have no right over anything material or spiritual belonging to IVC or Non Arabic on the Subcontinenet.
@Girish
I agree. It’s possible that ylh knew about the analogy.
@Kaalket
Where do you suggest they should go, to the Sahara?
The only real comparison Pakistanis have in the Mahabharata is to Pandavas.
Joke of the year!
Here’s another way of looking at it:
When war seemed inevitable, both Arjuna (for the Pandavas) and Duryodhana (for the Kauravas) went to Krishna to solicit support. Krishna gave them the choice between his army and himself in a non-combatant role. Arjuna unhesitatingly chose Krishna, and Duryodhana was overjoyed to have Krishna’s army. Krishna participated in the war as Arjuna’s chariot-driver.
There is a symbolism here I need not explain, but how it extends in the case at hand is perhaps as follows:
India is embracing Uncle Sam’s democracy, open markets, entrepreneurship, technology; while Pakistan is embracing Uncle Sam’s weapons and material aid (some $30 billion??? since 9/11).
no-communal
I say look at your historical narartive and find the land of your origin. All of Pakistan’s claims and demands rest on the religion of Islam so its natural the solution and answer of these issues must be based on the Dogma. To you yours and to me mine , Pakistan came to existence on the Sub continent with the arrival of Arab army in Sindh and it is a good point to start the quest . Indians can only offer Best Wishes.
“The only real comparison Pakistanis have in the Mahabharata is to Pandavas.”
Wonder who is playing Draupadi..PA, perhaps? The five husbands would be US, China, Saudi, etc..
Amar Bhai,
Do you even realize that people have stopped reading your posts? Yaar at least change the vocab that you use. You seem to be incapable of framing a single sentence without the words Arabic, fascist, Islam..Give us a break, c’mon.
I second Chote Miyan. Tiring, boring, effete and thoroughly off-putting. Was good for a little bit of comedy, but even that no more nowadays……Amar Bhai, you made your point, now please get the message.
Mere Bhai log..
I am reading V. S. Naipaul’s book, “Beyond Belief”. He calls Pakistan a criminal enterprise. It started with looting of Sikh’s and Hindus wealth. As per him was about 40% of the wealth of today’s Pakistan was with Sikh’s and Hindus.
He also provides a deep insight in the mind and thinking of a Converted (non-Arabic) Muslims.
After spending time in cities of Pakistan..V. S. Naipaul suggest that if there was no partition all Indian cities would have been like Karachi. He was talking in 1996.. a good read for all those who hates Qaid-e-Azam of pakistan.
Give it some time, London will become next kashmir and the curse will continue.
Message from a gangster
By: Vikram Maurya
I Chhota Shakeel (a gangster) am the messenger of Dawood Ibrahim (The Don).
I am the only messenger of Dawood and there is no other person who can do mandwali (make deals) on his behalf. Anybody who claims to be the messenger of The Don is fake, kill him outright.
It’s the order of the The Don that his followers (Our gang) go out and conquer the world. Fight till all other gangs in the entire world accept the authority of The Don.
Kill other gang members wherever you find them. Wait in ambush for them. The Don is most merciful, he will forgive you for that.
When you kill other gang members, their wealth and woman are your right hand possession. They are yours to keep, have sex with them or sell them or do both. The Don is most merciful he will forgive you for that, he is oft merciful.
When other gang member joins The Don’s gang (our gang), or agrees to pay hafta (authority fee), forgive him. The Don will also forgive him. The Don is most merciful.
Women and men are not the same, women are weak. They are not good for fighting. They are only good for sex. So all male members of Our gang can keep up to four women each, but no more, The Don does not like it if Our gang members have more.
Now I keep 38 women..umm might be a couple more, but so what I am Chhota Shakeel the messenger of The Don and the 4 women rule is not binding on me.
A girl 9 years of age is old enough to have sex so don’t worry if people call you a pedophile. I, Chhota Shakeel, had sex with such a girl. The messenger of The Don is the best of men and would never do wrong so you also can enjoy a 9 year old girl.
Destroy other gang members headquarters and set up our regional offices there. No other Don is worth working for only Our Don is supreme and only his followers are supreme.
Don’t fight with other gang members at our offices, The Don does not like that. But if the other gang members start a fight anywhere, then it is okay to kill them anywhere until they submit to The Don’s will.
When you cut an animal or other gang members slaughter him slowly, trust me it gives a lot of pleasure man. The Don himself told it to me and I have experienced that heavenly pleasure.
One more thing I told you that you can keep only 4 women but that is legally. You can also keep as many concubines as you want there is no restriction on that.
Hey, as a warning, whenever you are out on assignment at least make phone calls five times a day to The Don, otherwise he becomes suspicious. So please call and praise him 5 times a day. Also if any of our gang members wants to leave the gang kill him outright. He is a traitor.
If you do good and perform excellently The Don will reward you with 72 virgins. You can have sex with them as long as you want. And the magic is they will be virgins again the next time you see them.
Hey, all of our gang members must visit Karachi once in his life time because that is where The Don lives.
Chhota Shakeel
Milestogo again forgot to add the age of the author. Why are you playing tricks on us?
This article is for the extremist kind only. Moderates like you should ignore it.
How many extremists do you think are reading PTH to get their daily dose of intellectual input?
to chote miyan
Those who have stopped reading my posts are missing some real honest analysis. That is their choice.
But good that you read and don’t miss it. Don’t bother about whether others read or not.
BTW my mention/comparison of Bakaasura and Pakistan brought 10 responses.
Hayyer (November 17, 2010 at 10:23 pm):
These are not my personal views. Just observations. Also your insight is correct. At present neither India nor Pakistan see any reason to change its position or posture as you say. India for the last sixty years has chosen to hang on to Kashmir even if it means ruling millions of Kashmiri people by military force who do not want to be part of India. Pakistan on its part has never accepted Kashmir as part of India and regards it as a disputed property. Neither party is capable of convincing or forcing the other to accept her own point of view. Neither party is willing to compromise although there is room for a compromise.
Not sixty years, only fifty-seven. Before 1953 there was no reason to think that Kashmiris were not happy to remain with India.
On the other hand at present India has no alternative but to hang on. There is no exit policy under our constitution.
Of course one could say that the accession of Kashmir and the conditions attendant are not governed by the Constitution of India and one could well be right. It is nebulous territory. The terms governing accession were replaced by Article 370 of the Constitution, and of course the terms of accession.
Neither the Maharaja nor did the main political party ask for a plebiscite. That condition was added by Mountbatten, the man who is supposed to have manoeuvred Indian access to J&K through Gurdaspur district.
But that condition may have been undermined by Article 370. I don’t know; I am not a lawyer.
The UN resolutions on plebiscite again were not a demand either of the people of J&K or of GOI. They were rendered inoperative by Pakistan’s failure to withdraw its troops from the occupied area by its troops.
Because it can not be reasonably expected that Pakistan will withdraw it is safe to presume that the plebiscite cannot be held.
However it is by no means certain that a plebiscite, if it could be held would go Pakistan’s way. Kashmiri Muslims want Azadi.
Azadi unfortunately for them is not an available option. So, yes, India is hanging on to Kashmir. But, if I may be allowed a value judgement-better that India be permitted to hang on to it given Pakistan’s current religious and social circumstances, which Kashmiris have no desire to see extended to their little valley. Religious parties have no political standing in Kashmir. Kashmiri Muslims do not massacre each other in sectarian violence and there are no suicide bombers blowing themselves up in mosques and other public places. There is some violence, inspired by the ISI,and Geelani’s mindless Bandhs which everyone is fed up with, but on the whole it is better off as it is.
Islam has occluded the intelligence of the kashmiris. Like Poland in 1939 between Hitler and Stalin – so is Kashmir between Pakistan and China. Kashmir must make itself azad from the alien non-kashmiri, backward-arabic ideology under which it is suffering intellectually and politically. Those who are weak must develop intelligence and the ability to recognize real friends. The kashmiri land which has been snatched by Pakistan and China must be returned to the kashmiris.
@amar
Hearts filled with hatred for Islam usually end up getting subdued by it in unexplainable ways. It is natural for a human to be drawn towards it because of the appeal in its message of love and peace. The more one hates it the more one is drawn to it. We all notice your intensity of hatred growing day by day. It looks the tip over is not far. God speed!
Hayyer (November 19, 2010 at 11:00 am):
You are right. Kashmiri Muslims want independence from India. And you are probably also right. Independence from India does not automatically mean joining Federation of Pakistan. Joining Pakistan does not bring Kashmiris any special status. Although culturally Kashmiris are closer to Pakistan than India, under Pakistan they will be simply domiciles of an other small province forever complaining about dominance of Punjab. But you are wrong on your ‘religious and social’ assessment of Pakistani society. Pakistanis do not go around killing each other as you say. Only a small minority does that. But after Americans leave the area, things will come back to normal. Our tribals will go back to their centuries old occupation and there will be no suicide bombing in the settled areas. About sectarian strive in Pakistan. That perhaps will continue as both Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to support their respective client Mulla in Pakistan. Coming back to Kashmir. Independent Kashmir would be in a position to negotiate better terms from all of her neighbors. But that is just another hyperbole. As you said. India will never let Kashmir go unless she has to. I see no resolution in the near future. India is cursed to rule over unhappy Kashmiris by force.
to humanity
I am a very rational human being. My analysis of islam is not based on hate. So your “pious” words cannot manipulate me. In fact islam is worse than what I attribute to it. I am rather mild im my conclusions.
to PMA
Because of Pakistan Kashmiris are destined to be an accursed and tormented people. India is their best chance to go forward, but Pakistan will take care that they do not profit from it. How are the Kashmiris etc. in the POK or NA doing? The wickedness of this alien non-kashmiri arabic religion leaves them no other choice.
PMA:
I am glad we can finally agree on something. I have only the following two caveats.
1. “Although culturally Kashmiris are closer to Pakistan than India, under Pakistan they will be simply domiciles of an other small province forever complaining about dominance of Punjab.”
Culturally Kashmiri Muslims are closer to Islam than they are to Hinduism. But there is a strong sub stratum of Hindu, even Buddhist culture, in Kashmir, which Kashmiris Muslims are proud of notwithstanding the efforts of Saudi funded madrassas. Kashmiris, Hindu or Muslim are Kashmiri before they are anything else. They are all, almost without exception, a Kayastha community, excessively literary, with all the strengths and weaknesses of the formerly safedposh. Kashmiri Brahmins on the other hand apart from their former excellent acquaintance with Persian and Arabic have little connection to Islam.d
2. I see no resolution in the near future. India is cursed to rule over unhappy Kashmiris by force.
Not cursed by nature, but entirely invited. There are simple native remedies for the curse.
Hayyer (November 19, 2010 at 9:58 pm):
There is no exceptionalism to Kashmir. Before Punjab was divided at the insistence of some Brahman Pundit, it too was a multicultural society. Pre-partition Punjab too had a strong Hindu and Sikh cultural substratum to use your words. No Punjabi Nationalist on either side of Punjab would deny that. An ethnic nationalist may he be a Punjabi or Pashtun or Kashmiri is an Ethnic Nationalist first and anything else later. Pakistan and India on the other hand are an experiment where a nation is defined above religious affiliation and ethnicity. India has succeeded in this effort to some degree save some exceptions, Kashmir being one. Kashmiris have never bought Indian Nationalism. Indians know it but still continue to deny it and blame Pakistan for their failure in Kashmir. However had Kashmir been part of Pakistan at the time of independence, chances are that Pakistan would have been more successful than India in absorbing Kashmir as one of its federated units. The grievances of Kashmir within Pakistan federation would have been similar to those of Sindh, Balochistan and Pashtunkhwa but not what they are with India. I say that because of Kashmir’s cultural and geographic closeness to Pakistan. Suppose today India gives Kashmir its freedom. Chances are that an independent Kashmir will be closer to Pakistan than it would be to India. It is only natural. India knows it very well. So there you are. India is cursed to rule by force a people that do not want to be part of India.
PMA writes:
“However had Kashmir been part of Pakistan at the time of independence, chances are that Pakistan would have been more successful than India in absorbing Kashmir as one of its federated units.”
The main (or may be the only) pakistani “success” would have been to exterminate the hindus and buddhists (in Kashmir) more quickly and thoroughly than through the presend-day sunni terrorists which Pakistan is sending or inciting.
It is very difficult (may be even impossible) for a pakistani to be honest. His religion takes care of that too so that he need not have any compunctions about his deceits and self-deceits.
PMA:
It is not just that Kashmiri exceptionalism is another example of the common variety. Kashmiris are insular to the point of xenophobia and distinguish themselves and things Kashmiri from other races, communities and things to an extraordinary degree. They are also extraordinarily adept at concealing this sentiment. Kashmiri, or Koshur is by definition, superior. Punjabi in contrast is adjective for foreign, not Kashmiri, inferior. Muslims and Pandits are both prone to this attitude.
Culturally, Kashmiris are farther from Punjab its immediate neighbour than Punjabis are from Sindhis.
Kashmiris may not have bought Indian nationalism, but you can be certain that they would not have bought the Pakistani identity either. Pro Pak sentiment developed after 1953. There is nothing natural about it. I don’t advocate the argument of blaming Pakistan for Kashmiri disaffection, only of exploiting the disaffection. Our failure is not explained by the attraction of Pakistan as an alternative model but of not consistently applying to Kashmir the principles that India claims are its organizing principle.
Geographically Kashmir is equidistant from India and Pakistan. It is Punjab on both sides, west and south. Culturally, as I have already said they have little in common.
” Suppose today India gives Kashmir its freedom. Chances are that an independent Kashmir will be closer to Pakistan than it would be to India. It is only natural. India knows it very well. So there you are. India is cursed to rule by force a people that do not want to be part of India.”
Kashmiris are a surprising people. I would be very surprised if they were to be closer to Pakistan than to India if they were given their freedom
Hayyer (November 20, 2010 at 5:01 pm):
Kashmiris may be insular and xenophobic when it comes to Indians. Many Pakistanis have similar attitude towards Indians and Bengalis. I am afraid this attitude comes from ‘color prejudice’ prevalent in Sub-continent rather than from any other explanation. Even within Pakistan, Pashtuns consider themselves ‘superior’ to Kashmiris, Kashmiris to Punjabis, Punjabis to Sindhis and so forth and so on. But they all have learned to live with each other. On a larger plain they all belong to the ‘Indusland’. Realities of life, which are often based on economics, are very different than the self created insularity. There are more Kashmiris in Pakistani Punjab than there are in Kashmir itself. Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Nawaz Sharif – the list is too long – are all Kashmiris only two or three generations away. And even Kashmiris of Kashmir are not the indigenous people. Pakistani side of Punjab, particularly its major cities like Lahore, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Gujrat, Jhelum, Rawalpindi etc. etc. each has more Kashmiri population than Srinagar. Culturally and economically Kashmir and northern Punjab on Pakistani side are joined at the hips. Traditionally Kashmiris have come to Punjab for jobs and education. Kashmiri girls are highly sought after as brides. Kashmiri refugees of 1948 war, just like Indian and Afghan refugees have been totally absorbed in Punjab. Post-independence Pakistani Punjab is a big melting pot. Kashmiris feel very much at home in Pakistan. They occupy top positions in every field of Pakistani life. When comes to cultural aspects of Pakistan and Kashmir, a revision of old held Indian believes is in order. You need to pay a visit to Pakistani Punjab. It is not your grandfather’s Punjab anymore!
PMA:
“Kashmiris may be insular and xenophobic when it comes to Indians.”
You are entirely mistaken. This love for Pakistan and Pakistani Punjab is a post ’53 phenomenon. Before that they regarded everyone not Kashmiri with a jaundiced eye. The love for Pakistan is much diminished nowadays.
“Many Pakistanis have similar attitude towards Indians and Bengalis. I am afraid this attitude comes from ‘color prejudice’ prevalent in Sub-continent rather than from any other explanation. Even within Pakistan, Pashtuns consider themselves ‘superior’ to Kashmiris, Kashmiris to Punjabis, Punjabis to Sindhis and so forth and so on.”
Colour prejudice exists, gore kale are pet themes, but most Punjabis, even Pakistani ones are not fair. And contempt for Punjabi contempt for Sindhis is not colour based. On the other hand Hindu Bengalis are contemptuous of everyone except Tamil Brahmins, and that is not colour based.
“But they all have learned to live with each other. On a larger plain they all belong to the ‘Indusland’. Realities of life, which are often based on economics, are very different than the self created insularity.
“There are more Kashmiris in Pakistani Punjab than there are in Kashmir itself. Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Nawaz Sharif – the list is too long – are all Kashmiris only two or three generations away.”
I doubt very much that there are 6 million Kashmiri speaking Muslims in Pakistan. The others are not Kashmiri. I don’t know about Faiz Ahmad Faiz, who doesn’t look Kashmiri but Nawaz Sharif is from Poonch I am told, but they may be of Kashmir origin. He does not look Kashmiri either. Iqbal did, but Iqbal was of Kashmiri Pandit descent from a village near Kulgam.
“And even Kashmiris of Kashmir are not the indigenous people. Pakistani side of Punjab, particularly its major cities like Lahore, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Gujrat, Jhelum, Rawalpindi etc. etc. each has more Kashmiri population than Srinagar. Culturally and economically Kashmir and northern Punjab on Pakistani side are joined at the hips.”
No sir, they are not joined at the hip. Kashmir lies beyond the Pir Panjal. Pindi is nearly 300 kilometres from Srinagar.
“Traditionally Kashmiris have come to Punjab for jobs and education.”
Not any more. The Kashmir valley had two universities and two medical colleges plus a highly regarded engineering college. The IT guys do go to Pune, Bangalore and Delhi for jobs in the IT industry. But the woodcutters, and labourers have stopped going to Jammu and Punjab for at least 40 years.
“Kashmiris feel very much at home in Pakistan. They occupy top positions in every field of Pakistani life.”
So do they in India. Ghulam Nabi Azad and Farooq Abdullah for example. But Lt. General Zaki was also of Kashmiri extraction and Major General Naik is a Kashmiri from Trall. Kashmiri Pandits ofcourse have made a habit of ruling India.
“When comes to cultural aspects of Pakistan and Kashmir, a revision of old held Indian believes is in order.”
Culturally, PMA, Kashmir has little in common with Punjab except that according to Grierson, the Kashmiri language has about 20 percent of its vocabulary from Punjabi. Music, dance, literature, food, even dress, houses, mannerisms, pronunciation, attitudes, just about all that goes under the category of culture is distinct.
Pakistan sometimes produces its Kashmiris at international conferences. Our Kashmiris mock them for their pretensions. Kashmiri culture is about as close to Punjabi as Bengali is to Bihari.
Perhaps I should have added to my post above that Kashmiris think themselves superior not just on account of their complexions or their good looks. They think they are superior by the very fact of being Kashmiri, primarily in the area of the cranium. But its not just that they pride themselves on being more intelligent; Kashmiri fish is better than Punjabi fish. Vegetables grown in Kashmiri are superior because they are Kashmiri. Mutton is better from Kashmiri sheep. ‘Koshur chhya?’ is the question when something superior makes its appearance. Kashmiri superiority is axiomatic as is Punjabi inferiority. Punjabi of course means not Kashmiri, imported and ipso facto inferior.
I would hesitate to offend you so please forgive me if I add that your notions of Kashmir are more romantic than real-unless, and I am only guessing here, you are unconsciously inventing the real-not deliberately, but because you are fond of the idea.