Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » New provinces for religious minorities?
New provinces for religious minorities?
By Yasser Latif Hamdani (Courtesy Daily Times)
Now that an idea of administrative distribution of provinces into new provinces has been conflated with the idea of sub-national homelands within the Pakistani federation for linguistic groups, it was only a matter of time before a religious minority would raise its own demand for a province of their own.
Pakistan Christian Congress chairman Dr Nazir S Bhatti has cast the first stone and there will be more. In due course, Pakistani Hindus will, with justification, ask for a Hindu province and perhaps what will really stir the pot is if the Ahmedis ask for their own province in Rabwah (or Chenab Nagar as we have imposed on it). These are all justifiable demands arising out of the basic identity crisis because we have failed to evolve a secular Pakistani identity as Jinnah had hoped we would through a neutral and impartial state policy.
The much abused and misunderstood Two Nation Theory was a valid consociationalist counter-argument only in united India and had no application after partition, at least on a state level. Instead of heeding Jinnah’s words and forging in time a new Pakistani identity blind to religious differences, we chose to remain bogged down in subcontinental politics of the 1930s and 1940s, even defining Pakistan’s relationship with India along those lines.
Internally this has meant that we have failed to develop a consensus on a national identity. The idea was simple enough and perhaps best articulated by Faiz Ahmed Faiz in a paper he wrote on Pakistani identity a few decades ago. He suggested that Pakistan’s national culture and identity together constitute a mosaic that includes the majority’s Islamic culture, especially the syncretic sufi traditions of the region, the cultures of the sub-national groups, i.e. Pathan, Baloch, Sindhi, Punjabi, etc, and the cultures of religious minorities of Pakistan such as Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.
Pakistan might well have developed this consolidated rainbow identity had misfortune not struck us in the form of General Zia. The narrow-minded and outrageous interpretations of an otherwise rational and progressive faith, interpreted by the very people who had once opposed the creation of Pakistan, were imposed on Pakistan. Pakistan was transformed under General Zia from a tolerant multi-religious, multicultural — albeit Muslim majority state — to a theocratic Deobandi-only dystopia. The result of this was progressive alienation of religious minorities from the national discourse. Having made particularistic sectarian religious identity non-negotiable, post-Zia Pakistan continued to exclude non-Muslims and it is therefore only logical that non-Muslim minorities demand their own sub-national homelands within Pakistan on the basis of the officially canonised ‘Ideology of Pakistan’.
So what can the PPP government do to help ameliorate religious minorities in Pakistan short of conceding the demand for new religious-identity based provinces? First of all, it must go back to the 1973 Constitution and add substantial safeguards for religious and sectarian minorities in Pakistan, including giving them a veto on any legislation that affects their rights in their discretion. Secondly, all discriminatory legislation that is used time and again to target non-Muslims should be scrapped immediately. Finally, the offices of president and prime minister should be opened up to all citizens of Pakistan regardless of religion, caste or creed. You will never achieve any practical equality unless you give the religious minorities the theoretical right to aspire for the highest office in the land.
The basic principle on which Pakistan was achieved was that a permanent majority ought not to dominate a permanent minority on the basis of numerical strength. Every action that we have taken, beginning from the way the Objectives Resolution was passed in the Constituent Assembly where all Muslims save one voted in favour and all non-Muslims voted against it, has been in negation of the fundamental principle on which Pakistan was founded. Therefore, unless there is a course correction, we are headed for disaster.
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: minorities, Muslims, Pakistan, religious
88 Responses to "New provinces for religious minorities?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- kaalchakra
said Good work, saad.
This election is all-round good... - Rex Minor
said Sirdar Khan,
I would not take Sunny or his type hi... - Rex Minor said Sirdar Khan,
In “God we trust” and ...
- Arabian Homo Sarpian
said “From the brain model of Islam, the reptilia... - Arabian Homo Sarpian said “As far as I understand, a “Moderate M...
- Arabian Homo Sarpian said Sare Jag Ki Ghan (Shit),
“I am sure,the day...
- Mohammed Iqbal
said I am glad about the drubbing received by the Jama&... - Rex Minor said Once again an excellent and educative analysis of...
- Sardar KHAN
said To Sunny,
The trouble with you people who are so p... - Arabian Homo Sarpian said Last post I talked about AbraHarami Green Homoes w...
Pankaj mian,
That is not true… possibly your wishful thinking. Shias in Pakistan number no less than 40 million. Their “destruction” is not possible. Coming as I do from a family of Shias and Ahmadis, I find your comments entirely misconceived.
There is significant community mobilisation amongst Hindus and Christians around the idea of a secular Pakistan or as they like to call it “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. As for Ahmadi Muslims, they have chosen to remain apolitical for now. Ahmadis not standing a chance is just an overstatement. Their numbers are growing and I was very pleased to how vibrant and progressive they are – despite all the discrimination, you will find the finest doctors, lawyers etc in Pakistan to be Ahmadis.
If anything the public’s enthusiasm for playing into the hands of Mullah hatred for them is waning.
Most people here – like Pankaj etc- don’t understand Pakistan and its complexities unfortunately. They don’t understand for example that the 3 percent figure was manipulated by a cunning establishment… that Christians alone constitute some 10 million Pakistanis … for example 2 out every 10 Lahoris is a Christian. Similarly Hindus constitute no less than 3 million of Sindh’s population.
As for the Ahmadi sect of ISLAM …1 out of every 10 Lahoris is an Ahmadi. There are no less than 45 Ahmadi mosques in Lahore alone which are registered “places of worship”. The kind of persecution they face in Pakistan is because the Mullahs are afraid of them. Remember the Romans persecuted the Christians and then a century later all of Rome was Christian.
History is a very long timeline…. So may I suggest that you guys leave us to our devices and we will sort our mess ourselves. 2020 AD is not far away. My prediction is that by 2025 Pakistan will have a Non-Muslim Prime Minister.
Salman Arshad (August 25, 2011 at 2:56 am):
As YLH (August 25, 2011 at 1:03 pm) has rightly pointed out “You’ve got the reasons for making the new country wrong.” It is unfortunate that even intellectuals like yourself have bought into the popular myth that Pakistan was created for religious reasons. If religious-differences alone is the reason for the “separation” then religious-commonalities alone could also be the reason for “unification”. But we know that that is not so. A progressive like yourself would call Pakistan a “mistake” only if first bought into the so the called “religion based ideology.” Pakistan is neither a “religion based country” nor a “mistake.” Therefore no redemption required.
.
And about your second point. In my first post to you I never said that “Pakistan should be a country simply for the cultural reasons.” But it baffles me that you see no cultural differences between North India and Pakistan, yet you see “four different” cultures within Pakistan. On one hand you argue for North India-Pakistan being one cultural entity but at the same time argue Pakistan being a collection of four culture based “nations.” I hope you see the contradiction in your argument.
.
If you ask my personal opinion, nation is an empirical concept. Any one or combination of common denominators could be employed to define and create a nation. I have proposed that post-1971 Pakistan is primarily an Indus Vally country and that ought to be our national narrative. North India on the other hand is a Ganges Vally “Ganga-Jumni” civilization. We hold nothing against them. But even though there are plenty of cultural overlaps, religious differences as well as commonalities not withstanding, we are not them and they are not us. We, respectively, occupy two very vast and distinct regions. I would have not liked 1947 division of Punjab and two-way population migration. But now that it has happened, I would like to say goodbye to the East Punjab and embrace who so ever lives in Pakistan. Our future is Pakistan and not East Punjab and certainly not North India. So let us not waste time on that and consolidate what we got.
.
And, on your point regarding Bangladesh “created for the right reasons.” It is neither a Bengali Nation, nor a Muslim Nation. In my opinion it is a sub-nation perhaps best described as a Bengali-Muslim-Nation. Other wise how else division of Bengal could be explained.
.
Once again I respectfully appreciate your participation. I wish more Pakistanis like yourself come on board and take part in national dialog. Thanks and Regards.
@ Salman @PMA @ YLH
Please can someone explain to me, a not very bright person, why it matters today what dissparate Muslims of United India thought back then? Why should we care if it was a mistake or not? Pakistan will only remain as a nation if the people of Pakistan want it to remain so today and tomorrow – notwithstanding the iron hand of establishment. I believe that even with all the terrible mess that we have most people of current Pakistan (excluding Baluchis perhaps) want to remain together as a nation. That should be enough. Pakistanis debate Pakistan’s raison d’etre all the time. We are so insecure as a young multifaceted nation.
For me, the contentious bit is the role of political Islam in our laws and systems of governance. If there was one definition of a Muslim and the understanding and application of Islam was a settled thing there would be no conflict. Intense debate arises because there is no one overarching understanding of Islam. There never will be because we are humans and each approaches God in his own way, if at all. Conflict arises because one particularly nasty, intolerant and rigid interpretation of Islam is trying to subjugate everyone else. This is the primary source of conflict as I see it in Pakistan today.
The ethnic conflicts are there but they are more related to competition for resources and power. The narrative can be vicious and murderous at times but on the whole the different ethnicities are not asking to succession from Pakistan (again Baluchistan excepted).
The demand for more provinces is related to demand for resources and power in a country where the state does not act in a neutral way.
If the people who are the State acted strictly in a neutral way the sharp edge of ethnic conflict which raises its head from time to time would also subside. Even with all of it’s practical difficulties, Bengal may have stayed with Pakistan and the minorities stayed put. The fact is that from the start, the State did not act in a neutral way. This leads to all the turmoil and the existential threat to the unity of the country.
The State/establishment must start to act in a neutral way. That is a message worth conveying to numbskulls.
@ Tilsim:
In my view, it is not possible to simply switch off our past.
Grieving is necessary to get rid of the past. We need to bury the dead, and grieve for a few days. Only then the dead is truly buried.
Pakistan has to do that.
I would agree with you totally if you are implying that the only way forward would be to dump what happened in the past. But we MUST go through the process of dumping the past, and that cannot happen until we accept our past. If we deny even recognizing it, we won’t dump it either.
It doesn’t matter what it was, how right or wrong it was, but it is necessary to recognize it, accept that it needs burying, and then bury it.
@ PMA:
Any one or combination of common denominators could be employed to define and create a nation
Agreed in general, but I don’t know what you mean by “could be”. Do you mean that no matter what reason is defined, it won’t matter. I wouldn’t agree with that.
The reason why a group decides to IDENTIFY themselves as a nation separate from others is the most vital element in defining their future course.
If you meant to say that any reason could be used to create a nation, of course, when a group decides to separate, there is nothing to stop them, but their reason to separate, based on how mature their decision is, will define their future.
.
I never said there were no cultural differences. I said there was no reason to be so ambitious of separating so much as to form a “league” with a communal identity and assert the separation. Especially when there was no single “Muslim” identity or reason for there to be one.
There should be some socially recognizable reason that compels a group of people to assert an identity. That reason in Pakistan’s case was “the fear of Hindus”. The rest is only romanticizing of the identity so as to mask the fear.
And to support the fact that different cultures can be “nations”, there are several successful examples staring us in the face, making fun of our fear-based identity.
.
Indus valley.. ok thats very very romantic now. And reasonably true.
But that still doesn’t become a reason to be so ambitious as to assert separation.
Even if we ADOPT that narrative, how will we justify the separation that occurred in back in 1947, without first defining some contentious issue ?
.
Division of Bengal wasn’t done on the basis of Muslim majority?
Of course it had to be the best compromise.
@ YLH, PMA:
The Pakistani flag is at least the most prominent remnant of the religious divisiveness in the minds of our lot of founding fathers. Which part of the flag represents “Jinnah’s” Pakistan? The boundary between the “white” and the “green” ?
Why Jinnah wanted to create Pakistan is not the same as why Pakistan was created.
Pakistan was created because that was the common goal of Jinnah and all the people involved. The REASON they had in their minds was not common.
Jinnah had his personal reasons and he surely *wished* his reasons were more popular, but destiny had holier goals in mind. Its safe to say he tried his best, but failed. That is what all of his speeches express, when seen in totality.
.
Objectives Resolution is a very fine proof of how this internal conflict got resolved. All the “dark” forces made sure Jinnah was gradually shifted out of the process. The cruel law of Natural Selection was stronger than *wishes* of Jinnah or Faiz or ours.
.
The moral of the story is: *wishes* don’t work. Someone had to call on Islamism that was on the rise at that time, fairly and squarely, by pointing at it. Not by whispering before the legislature. But in the public. In the press.
Jinnah should have said what he never said.
.
So lets just keep doing what needs to be done.
.
Something for everyone to read:
It is quite obvious that no non-Muslim should have any objection if the Muslims are enabled to order their lives in accordance with the dictates of their religion. You would also notice, Sir, that the State is not to play the part of a neutral observer, wherein the Muslims may be merely free to profess and practise their religion, because such an attitude on the part of the State would be the very negation of the ideals which prompted the demand of Pakistan, and it is these ideals which should be the corner-stone of the State which we want to build.You would remember, Sir, that the Quaid-I-Azam and other leaders of the Muslim League always made unequivocal declarations that the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based upon the fact that the Muslims had a way of life and a code of conduct. They also reiterated the fact that Islam is not merely a relationship between the individual and his God, which should not, in any way, affect the working of the State. Indeed, Islam lays down specific directions for social behaviour, and seeks to guide society in its attitude towards the problems which confront it from day to day. Islam is not just a matter of private beliefs and conduct
From the speech of Liaqat Ali Khan on the passing of the Objectives Resolution.
I don’t know why he being a member of the Muslim League that created Pakistan for secular reasons, had to finally declare Pakistan only as secular as “enunciated by Islam”?
He had a political position that can be considered just second after Jinnah.
.
In other words, what was Jinnah doing in this lot full of Islamists?
Salman Arshad (August 26, 2011 at 2:18 am):
I am trying to understand the logic of your reasoning but are having hard time in doing so. You see Pakistan as a “separation from others” whereas I see Pakistan as “coming together of many.” Who are these “others” you are talking about? By that if you mean the Hindus and the Sikhs of Pakistan region, then please point out to me the clauses that called for the migration of these communities out of Pakistan region. The Muslim majority areas of the old British Empire were large enough and the Muslim population of these areas was large enough that these areas must be politically in the hands of Muslims. That is the basis of Pakistan my friend and not some monkey mouse “fear of the Hindus” or “religion based country.” You are limiting your outlook only to the one century of British rule preceding independence of Pakistan whereas I see history of Pakistan region in its entirety. I am of the firm believe that because of its history, geography, culture and economy the region was going to fall out of the Empire anyway. So it happened. The sad part is that the Hindu and the Sikh communities of our region left us. And there is nothing we could do about it now. The demography of Pakistan has changed since 1947. We have a large number of Muslims that have come into our folds. We are a Muslim country now. Now our future is with the people who live in Pakistan now regardless of their origin. We are an Indus Valley country. Let us consolidate and built upon what we got. Let us not talk about the “others” that never existed among us.
for example 2 out every 10 Lahoris is a Christian. Similarly Hindus constitute no less than 3 million…1 out of every 10 Lahoris is an Ahmadi.
—-
There are no numbers anywhere in Pakistani census to back up this claim. The total ahmedi number in all Pakistan will not exceed 1 million. what to talk of Lahore. Similarly there maybe 500,000 Christians in Lahore and not the 20% of Lahore population. Throwing unsupported claims will not help Ahmedi cause.
“But we MUST go through the process of dumping the past,”
Perhaps. It is here that the conversation gets stuck though. The truth is so unpalatable. The driver (of partition) was that primordial emotion of fear most certainly. That fear may also have had very valid bases for some but the idea was definitely packaged well and sold to others who had less to fear. If Pakistan was formed on the basis of love, we would not have the mess now. We would not need to invent a reason to love to make up for the emptiness once the reason to fear was no longer there. Islamic brotherhood was a crutch, which was exposed long before people were slaughtered whilst saying their prayers.
But you know, the fact is that humans can develop love by simply living with each other. This is more true of the generations that are being borne with no memory of partition. They all do have an idea of Pakistan, perhaps dissparate ideas, but they identify with it nevertheless. This patriotism exposes itself in sport, under threat, in protest, in our music. It’s remarkable it’s there at all given all the intraprovincial and interprovincial bitterness.
Love (for the country) in its fullest sense can come too but that requires us to move on. It requires the people to recognise a different set of principles to the ones they currently hold. People can come together around common principles; a new contract so to speak that recognises diversity and rights. It requires a dialogue that’s beyond ones that the politicians are capable of.
We can’t alwayseasily talk about painful things. Sometimes we just have to move on and come back to it when we are on more solid ground.
to tilsim
There is nothing like apolitical or non-political islam. In fact there is nothing apolitical or non-political in this whole world of real human life. There may be apolitics or non-politics in geology or minerology (although even here the religiously minded wish to apply the bible and overthrow scintific discoveries). Islam is the least non-political or apolitical system. Even the sufis were master manipulators in politics. And then there is the question of totalitarianism in the name of some primitive tribal god.
rehmat mian,
Pakistani census is deeply flawed and whenever there is a genuine census in this country the real numbers of Christians and other communities will shake Mullah raj to its foundations.
YLH wrote:
YLH calling me Mullah. LOL!
BTW, I don’t care about Pakistani census, and I will not shake because of that!
Pakistan census is deeply flawed but your personal census is accurate, is that right? Where are you pulling numbers from, your hat?
@ PMA:
the Muslim population of these areas was large enough that these areas must be politically in the hands of Muslims
I didn’t understand this.
Democratically it was most likely that the regions would be under Muslims, but I don’t understand why the “must” is there in that sentence.
.
What I understood due to the “must” is that we are an Indus Valley country but the President “must” be a Muslim. Are you trying to say something along those lines?
.
And due to not really being sure of what you meant, I am not able to put the rest of the your post in the right context.
.
But what I know of the Muslim League’s movement is that it was Islam that defined our cultural identity and I do not remember references to the Indus Valley to have defined our culture so separately from the rest of India that we had to be ambitious enough to actually negotiate a boundary.
.
This very romantic Indus Valley reference also doesn’t hold very true because the four separate provinces have vastly separate cultures. Extremely different cultures I must say.
.
And Bangladesh has nothing to with Indus Valley whatsoever.
Even Bangladesh got separated only when it’s culture was officially threatened.
.
Similarly, the Muslims of this region felt THREATENED and THAT is why they decided to separate. You seem to not want to talk about that. “Coming together” and “Indus Valley” is very romantic stuff but the illiterate populace that supported self-righteous views like the Objectives Resolution doesn’t seem to be a romantic society at all.
.
India already has extremely separate cultures, so can you explain why those people find no reason why they “must” be under any communal rule with an altogether separate constitution?
Unless they “must” have a constitution that FAVORS their community?
.
India, US, UK, have constitutions that favors no community. So there is no reason any community “must” have separate constitutions.
.
Whereas Pakistan has a constitution that favors Muslims exclusively, RIGHT from the objectives resolution. And that fulfills the reason it was created for, which is, that in united India their “separate culture” would be threatened.
@ Tilsim:
I think it would not be possible to live around the idea of love so involved that one never asks the question “why was Pakistan created?”
.
I absolutely agree with you about how we should live, but this decision to live with love is one that is borne out of maturity, not as a result of forgetfulness of our origin.
.
Living with love is always a mature decision.
And we are growing at the rate of no more than one day per year. What do you expect from a 65 day old toddler.
.
Those patriotic emotions you are talking about have nothing to do with mature understanding of what love is.
@ Salman
I don’t know if I can easily say what is mature and what is not. Maturity must lie in a national vision for Pakistan in 2011 that moves beyond the hopes and dreams of 1930 which proved to be an illusion. Yet how many people are prepared for this?
In his 1930 address, Allama Iqbal said:
“The life of Islam as cultural force in this living country very largely depends on its centralization in a specified territory… Possessing full opportunity of development within the body-politic of India, the North-West Indian Muslims will prove the best defenders of India against a foreign invasion, be that invasion one of the ideas or of the bayonets…”
Clearly Pakistan as an independent nation (let alone being a federating unit of India (as Iqbal had it then)), was not able to achieve what Allama Iqbal hoped for in 1930. We are overrun by venemous and murderous religious zeal. Many of these ideas are imported. The bayonets are too. The people of Pakistan welcomed all of these things first by design and then by a fair degree of acceptance.
As ordinary citizens, the terrorism and misery around us forces us to reopen the history books and to reflect. Where did things go wrong? However this enquiry forces the ideological fault lines to start rubbing against each other again. No national consensus comes out of it; only a heightened sense of separation and confusion. Perhaps this conversation must occur to have the opportunity to move on as you say. My fear is that the mindset that is wedded to the original 1930 ideas is not willing to let go. It will ask you and me to leave first before letting it’s certainties go. It does n’t like uncertainty and thinks the entire edifice will crumble.
Pakistan today does meet the political demands that Allama Iqbal set out. It’s constitution probably also meets his demands. However, he wanted to see an Islamic nation that was able to reform and progress. I suggest he would not approve but we would also NOT be surprised if he could see the current state of the country’s ideology and laws and the type of Jihadi salafi Islam that is taking over. Even in his 1930 address he talked about the uncertainties that lay ahead. He said:
“… In the world of Islam, we have a universal polity whose fundamentals are believed to have been revealed, but whose structure, owing to our legists’ want of contact with the modern world, today stands in need of renewed power by adjustments. I do not know what will be the final fate of the national idea in the world of Islam. Whether Islam will assimilate and transform it, as it has before assimilated and transformed many ideas expressive of a different spirit, or allow a radical transformation of its own structure by the force of this idea, is hard to predict… At the present moment, the national idea is racializing the outlook of Muslims, and this is materially counteracting the humanizing work of Islam. And the growth of racial consciousness may mean the growth of standards different and even opposed to the standards of Islam. ”
It’s quite clear to me what happened in the end. What happened, so happened.
It’s working out how we should now live as a nation is what needs to occur. A nation state is more than just about lose and conflicting religious affiliations. Perhaps it is maturity as you say that is lacking. It can only come through dialogue, common experience, struggles, memories. We have those. We all know what it means to be a Pakistani, for better or worse right across the country.
My plea is that it’s important to find effective ways to conduct a dialogue recognising the stultifying nature of a nation’s sensitivities. This dialogue, which is in it’s infancy, in Pakistan is very polarising currently. Just witness the Marvi v Zahid H televised debate the other day. Perhaps it needs to be so polarising to be effective but I am not sure it will succeed if there is no recognition of the things that bind first; about getting to some common ground on basic principles.
I wish you success. I have learnt from you and look forward to future discussions.
The quotes above are from Allama Iqbal’s 1930 Allahabad address at the 25th Session of the the All India Muslim League, December 29-30.
I will be thankful of some one please enlighten me about the IVC legacy left in the land currently known as Pakistan. How much of Pakistani narartive relates to social, cultural, religious, moral, spiritual,linguistic practices of the IV people and does the current value system in the land represents improvement over IVC or decline from the ancient standards?
to sachbol and tilsim
In the excavations that were found in the IVC we have the seals of a man in yoga position, of a dancing naked girl, of bulls, elephants and rhenoceroses, of faces which I chanced to see in Jalandhar (indian Panjab) when I visited that city in 2005 AD. The language/script of IVC will probably remain unknown to us for ever, but some “alim”-quisling of islam in Pakistan went ahead with the claim that it is arabic!
What the pakistani does not want to hear – after 80 years of “nazaria Pakistan” – is truth. He wants to be a bootlicker of arabs and turks, and now also of China (- didn’t the boss of islam tell them to beseech China?). He is convinced that he has an arabic divine book that solves all his problems after death (the problems before death are of lesser value!). He lives to die early and thus come to enjoy the promises in the arabic book as early as possible. He likes to kill so that he can die killing those, who are branded enemies of the arab god.
The elite/rulers of Pakistan has the pakistani in complete grip. For that slander and hate against India and hindus is the major instrument. The so-called divine book contains enough stuff to encourage and confirm this hate, self-deceit, arrogance and conceit. It is a complete, finalized and perfected system of manipualtion and mental and physical imprisonment.
We write that in the PTH – hardly anyone in Pakistan reads the PTH.
Salman Arshad: I was going to post my response to your August 27, 2011, 1:31 am post and then I saw the eloquent August 27, 2011 at 3:00 am post of Tilsim. Even though his post is rather lengthy and covers many points, let me quote parts of his concluding comments:
.
“A nation state is more than just about lose and conflicting religious affiliations. Perhaps it is maturity as you say that is lacking. It can only come through dialogue, common experience, struggles, memories. We have those. We all know what it means to be a Pakistani, for better or worse right across the country. My plea is that it’s important to find effective ways to conduct a dialogue recognising the stultifying nature of a nation’s sensitivities. This dialogue, which is in it’s infancy, in Pakistan is very polarising currently. Perhaps it needs to be so polarising to be effective but I am not sure it will succeed if there is no recognition of the things that bind first; about getting to some common ground on basic principles.
.
In order to find common grounds and consolidate as a nation, we need to build on our national commonalities. Yes our core believes are one and solid. We are a Muslim Nation and there is no need to deny that. Our core values are rooted in the Islamic principles. But since there is no singular agreement on any one school of Islamic thoughts and jurisprudence, we need to leave the practice of Islam to the individuals and in addition to Islam concentrate on our other commonalities. I advocate to look into our history, culture, geography and economics to develop a common narrative that goes beyond our common religion. And that is not merely a romantic thought. The conviction that makes you to see the cultural commonalities between North India and Pakistan, perhaps you can use same conviction to look cultural commonalities between the sub-cultures that revolve around our national axis. Move away from the narrative of “separation” and come closer to the narrative of “coming together.” Don’t think of Pakistan as a “mistake” that you seem to do, but think of it as an opportunity to build a great nation. We the 180 million people of Pakistan have more in common than you tend to believe, unless you are India oriented all along at the first place. In that case I do not have much to say to you.
PMA wrote:
64 years ago, it was an opportunity. Today it is a world-acknowledged mistake!
Sachbol (August 27, 2011 at 4:45 am):
.
“I will be thankful of some one please enlighten me about the IVC [Indus Valley Civilization] legacy left in the land currently known as Pakistan. How much of Pakistani narrative relates to social, cultural, religious, moral, spiritual, linguistic practices of the IV [Indus Valley] people and does the current value system in the land represents improvement over IVC or decline from the ancient standards?
.
To answer your first question: None.
.
And to you second question: We do not know as we do not know the value system of the people of ancient Indus Valley Civilization.
.
The first known Indus Valley Civilization existed estimated 5000 to 8000 years ago. The knowledge of the existence of that civilization was gained only recently in the twentieth century by the archaeological excavations and studies. The work is still in progress. But we know that they were short dark-skin Negroids perhaps descendants of the earlier migrants out of Africa and close relatives of Dravidians or perhaps also of Aborigines. How and exactly when that first civilization died out is not completely known yet. It is theorized that perhaps they were pushed further east and south into Indian Peninsula by the Ayrian Invasion, or perhaps the Civilization died due to natural calamities and causes.
.
The second Indus Valley Civilization was established by the invading Early Aryans and by the successive Persians and Greeks. In religious terms this is the age of Vedic Brahmanism, Persian Zoroastrianism, Greek and Roman influences and ultimately Buddhism. Development of trade routes along the 1500 miles long Indus Valley, magnificent empires of Darius, Alexander and Ashoka, the Gandhara Civilization and Kushans all belong to this period of the Indus Valley.
.
And the third Indus Valley Civilization starts with the Muslim Invasion from Arabia, Persia and Central Asia. During the one thousand years of Muslim rule the Indus Valley became mostly Muslim. I don’t have to tell you about this period, as you already know it. What will happen to this third Indus Valley Civilization two or three thousands years from now. That is any body’s guess. We know this much. The people come and go. Civilizations form, flourish and then vanish. But the Indus Valley will be there as long as this earth lives.
It is just asking what letter was before A.OR THE EGG WAS FIRST OR THE CHICKEN .
to PMA
Obviously the arab and turk invaders introduced something really really bad – far worse that what aryans or meder or parthians or greeks etc. did – into the IVC.
The pre-arab introductions did not lead to the kind of hate, irrationality, racism, fascism, intolerance, dishonest way of life, falsification of the history-narrative, child molestation in the name of education, misogyny, suicide killings, narrow-minded-ness, obscurantism etc. that the arab/turk religion and imperialism have brought in.
Why keep silent on that?
hiob (August 28, 2011 at 1:55 pm):
I know that you are pissed off. Hey, there is nothing that you do now except spill your venom here at PTH. Lots of water has flown through the Mighty Indus since the days when Mohammad bin Qasam first landed at the shores of Sindh and Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi descended from the slopes of Hindkush. You can romanticize the earlier Aryan, Persian and Greek invasions and detest the Muslim Arab, Persian and Turkish invasion as you please. Nobody can stop you there. But my advise. Shit happens. Stop the tantrum and get on with your life.
to PMA
Thanks for your post.
Your language is revealing much more than you would have otherwise admitted.
to wit
1)
I am neither aryan nor persian nor greek.
2)
You do seem to want to be an arab (a mutarriba) or turk. May be next life.
But by then most human beings in Pakistan will have become aware that they are basically hindus and will be proud of it and detest those who tried to make them into bootlickers of arabs, turks and foreign bringers of misogyny, arab-god-centred totalitarianism and tribalism.
to PMA
you wrote:
“…since the days when Mohammad bin Qasam first landed at the shores of Sindh and Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi descended from the slopes of Hindkush.”
Being quite romantic eh?
And then accusing others of being romantic?
BTW: Hindukush = killer of hindus
“But my advise. Shit happens. Stop the tantrum and get on with your life.”
Would be nice if you followed your own advise yourself wrt Kashmir.
hiob (August 28, 2011 at 3:13 pm):
My God you seem to be extremely traumatized by the arabs/turks. What have they done to you. Calm down. Hindkush is simply a name for the mountain range forming the right wall of the Northern Indus Valley. The word does not mean ‘killer of hindus.’ In Persian/Turkish languages the word simply means ‘end of Hind’, as traditionally Indus River is consider the western terminus of the Sub-continent. I hope this explanation reduces your anxiety towards ‘arabs and turks’ a bit.
Hiob,
“I am neither aryan nor persian nor greek.”
That is correct. You are an ass.
and Bade Miyan is an asses ass!
to PMA
Actually it is muslims in the ISC (Indian Subcontinent) who are traumatized by arabs and turks. They are incapable of protesting against, let alone escaping from, the ill ideologies, racism, totalitarianism-fascism in theological and political matters and hatred towards everything hindu brought in by the arab and turk invaders and kept up by their quislings until today.
Kush comes from persian “kushtan” (=to kill). Your pak ideology propaganda has kept you unawares of this.
The Sindhu/Indus is not and was not the end of the Sub-Continent. Sub-continental way/philosophy of life (e.g. Buddhism, pacifism, non-violence) spread into what is today Baluchistan, Afghanistan also.
Even the turks (in central asia) were once under the influence of Buddhism/shamanism and in those days they were a more peace-loving people comitting no genocides. But after their islamization they became aggressive robbers and genociders. The extermination of christians (Greeks, Armenians, assyrians etc.) in Anatolia by the invading turks is now well recorded and admitted by historians.
The muslims think arabs and turks are the real bringers of civilization and the hindus had none of it before they came. This trauma does not leave the muslim psyche although it is based on lies.
PMA’s responses are typical muslim responses which contain no self-criticism but a high level of polemic and pak ideology propaganda only.
—
to bade miyan
Why do you wish to demonstrate again and again that asses (myself included among those hard-working tolerant creatures by you) have more self-respect, intelligence and honesty than you?
to bade miyan
Asses are hard-working, intelligent*, self-respecting, resilient, tough, hardy, honest, patient, tolerant, *ever under-estimated, economical, self-sufficient, ecologically very well integrated, frugal, smart etc. etc.
So many positive characteristics.
Just because some humans have less intelligence etc. than them and hence deride them means nothing to them.
Human civilization could not have been built without their participation.
Pity that you have not still reached even the stage of being an ass.
When Raj says you are an asse’s ass – then I disagree with him. Even that stage you will have difficulty reaching at the rate which you are performing.
Creating new provinces for the minorities is not feasible as they maybe living anywhere in Pakistan and people do not want to leave their ancestoral places until forced just like in 1947. And anyhow on whose land will they be shifted to? Better to have common electorates and if what YLH says of their true numbers the politicians will have to listen to their voices too.
@ YLH
Draw not my attention to past bullshit..after you have denied the ‘two nation theory’ no other past document stands valid now.
You are an aggrieved Ahmadi and you find this and a few other forums fit to vent out your frustration. Carry on…I can bet nothing is going to come out of it! You, ie a jaundiced-eyed Ahamdi spoke-twit will fail in his efforts because it is you only who aspire for changes in Pakistan’s constitution which fall in your favor..but naa,,,,,that dream will never never come true in a democratic country having Muslim majority …
You were born to suffer…and you will always!!
Christian, Hindus and Parsis never demanded what you’re dying for…they are the real minorities and I love them more than I love
any deviates who have been constitutionally adjudged Kafirs and Murteds….and outcasts of Islam!!
One should pity you for the time and effort you spend scribbling bullshit around on some forums which entertain you just because they are like you or like your funny notes!!
Be good and like a good citizen ( from minority) of Pakistan spend more time in constructive ventures…and just stop hiding behind history and living in the past!! Have a bet with me you will never touch the zenith of Constitutional phase as long as democracy prevails (leave alone Muslim majority) in Pakistan!!
@ @ YLH
May i draw you attention towards the editorial published in Times on 13th September, 1948?? It clearly states that Jinnah wanted to make a distinctly separate homeland (Pakistan) for Muslims where Islamic system would prevail. How do you compare it with Jinnah’s speech of 11 Aug? upon which you trumpet your arguments about secularism??? Which one of the both ”revelations” are right, the former or the latter??? At least I do not doubt the Times word. Jinnah’s speech creates doubts as it is neither corroborated by any contemporary historian or leader nor it was the basic intention of Jinnah!
Gentlemen, Gentlemen! So many negative vibes here! What has happened to the civility of PTH! As far as “Asses” go, I have known many in my life, both good and bad, but you guys are taking this argument to a new all time low! Remember that old saying from the Bible. “Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked 40 miles”! Now I have no idea how far he was going or whether or not he came back for his beloved “Ass”, but at least he tied up his “Ass” so it wouldn’t get into trouble! Perhaps you guys should consider doing the same!
As always, Lady Guinevere
@@ lady Guinevere
True, some ”Asses” are too ‘wild’ to be let free! They suck!!