A Christian Province in Pakistan?

[MilesTogo]

right, like bangladeshi are muslims but still decided to part ways...

Why is it not even more stupid to create a country for different races?

Heck, most of Europe, North America and Australia don't even have (for the most part) differences of race and faith - they are primarily white, Christian nations.

Most nations are formed because the people of a particular region see themselves differently and see themselves as being better off in a separate nation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

right, like bangladeshi are muslims but still decided to part ways...

Sure, the sentiment for Bangladeshi independence did arise out of a perception of being able to obtain better governance and progress through independence, and cultural and linguistic differences played a big role as well, as did external interference in the actual independence.

 

[gogbot]

There is no such thing as an 'independent province'. A province cannot be independent by definition and will have to adhere to the constitution of the nation it is a part of, in this case Pakistan.

These are nuances for fundamentally the same argument.
And what the hell was it that you were negotiating in Swat, Before you took action and drove them out.
You have been open to the Idea of a province with different laws before.

Secondly, it has not even, as of yet, been established that there is a particular contiguous region in Pakistan that has a Christian majority and could serve as a new province, so the argument that somehow if this region could be turned into a province and thereby allow the people to be better governed is moot.

Well regardless of what the logistics are on the ground. I'm sure you cant disagree that The argument that the Christians are making for this case is the same as Argument made for Pakistan.

Now i will admit its not to the same level. But fundamentally its the same argument. It follows the same principles.
I will be very interested to to see How Pakistan handles this.

 

[gogbot]

Sure, the sentiment for Bangladeshi independence did arise out of a perception of being able to obtain better governance and progress through independence, and cultural and linguistic differences played a big role as well, as did external interference in the actual independence.

You know that's funny because Public opinion in Bangladesh is that.

The external powers just Interfered in what was actually a fully Independent Bangladesh movement.

In fact Bangladesh downplays the role any external forces had on its road to independence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

These are nuances for fundamentally the same argument.
And what the hell was it that you were negotiating in Swat, Before you took action and drove them out.
You have been open to the Idea of a province with different laws before.

The provincial government was retaining significant powers for appointing magistrates (or Islamic judges in this case), local administrators and police officers under the Swat peace deal.

Secondly, the system was technically in consonance with the Pakistani constitution in that it was 'in accordance with Shariah'. The names of various posts and the systems put in place for administering justice differed slightly. The Taliban interpretation of the agreement differed of course.

Well regardless of what the logistics are on the ground. I'm sure you cant disagree that The argument that the Christians are making for this case is the same as Argument made for Pakistan.

Now i will admit its not to the same level. But fundamentally its the same argument. It follows the same principles.
I will be very interested to to see How Pakistan handles this.

The argument the Christians are making is not the same as the argument made for Pakistan, but rather similar to the arguments made in India for the creation of States, such as the recent one of 'Telangana' and prior to that the arguments made for other states, since the demand is not for independence, as in the case of Pakistan.

Secondly, you cannot ignore the 'logistics' on the ground of whether or not there is a contiguous geographical area with a Christian majority since without such an area the whole idea of a 'Christian province' is pointless.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You know that's funny because Public opinion in Bangladesh is that.

The external powers just Interfered in what was actually a fully Independent Bangladesh movement.

In fact Bangladesh downplays the role any external forces had on its road to independence.

The East Pakistan insurgency had largely been controlled militarily - independence would not have been achieved without Indian military intervention, heck, even the insurgency, instability and unrest would not have gotten to the point it did without covert Indian intervention.

But this is off topic.

 

[gogbot]

The provincial government was retaining significant powers for appointing magistrates (or Islamic judges in this case), local administrators and police officers under the Swat peace deal.

Secondly, the system was technically in consonance with the Pakistani constitution in that it was 'in accordance with Shariah'. The names of various posts and the systems put in place for administering justice differed slightly. The Taliban interpretation of the agreement differed of course.

Case and point did the original deal involve Different laws in that area as opposed to the rest of the country.

Just because there was constitutional loop hole does not change the fact that There were going to be two different sets of laws in the country.

One for the Swat valley where the Taliban were and one for The rest of Pakistan

The argument the Christians are making is not the same as the argument made for Pakistan, but rather similar to the arguments made in India for the creation of States, such as the recent one of 'Telangana' and prior to that the arguments made for other states, since the demand is not for independence, as in the case of Pakistan.

Let me ask you something How is The State telengana a split based on Corrupt politics and Economic disparity between two geographic regions of fundamentally the same people the same as a demand ofr a province for Minority group

Andra pradesh has the
Same language same religious mix.
There is no Telengana minority. It not a telengana religion
The only reason is Every politican want's to have their own state government to control (corrupt politics).
and there are allegations that The Telengana region does not has as much development as the rest of teh state of Andra Pradesh. Which are rubish as Hyderabad is in the Telenga region. which is the biggest city in the state. And a major IT hub.

So they want a seperate state so that development in the Telengana region can be more properly addressed. Its about politics and money.
Nothing to to do with Minorites region or people of a different culture

This is about
A religious minority asking for separate province for its minority group. So whats the similarity

What are the ground on which the Christians are demanding a new province. They are doing it on the grounds of Religion. And the last time that Happened in the Sub continent. Was when Pakistan came into being.

Secondly, you cannot ignore the 'logistics' on the ground of whether or not there is a contiguous geographical area with a Christian majority since without such an area the whole idea of a 'Christian province' is pointless.

Well I'm just talking about the Argument Put forth and the grounds on which it should be interpreted.
The Christan groups have made a case. I'm trying to bring to light the symbolic message behind their case.

How, where when if this prince will be come ot pass. Is a different topic all together.

Just take the argument look at what it means symbolically.

The logistics on the ground is not my concern
What was it Jinha once said.

You worry about India, let us worry about Pakistan

So i repeat my self

The argument put forward(their case) by the Christian groups, is fundamentally the same as that made for Pakistan.
But on a smaller scale.

Just the argument, Not the whole show.

 

[gogbot]

The East Pakistan insurgency had largely been controlled militarily - independence would not have been achieved without Indian military intervention, heck, even the insurgency, instability and unrest would not have gotten to the point it did without covert Indian intervention.

But this is off topic.

I am opening a new thread to discuss this in the Bangladesh defense section

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Case and point did the original deal involve Different laws in that area as opposed to the rest of the country.

Just because there was constitutional loop hole does not change the fact that There were going to be two different sets of laws in the country.

One for the Swat valley where the Taliban were and one for The rest of Pakistan

Different system more than laws, since Pakistan's laws cannot be contrary to Islam in any case, and in fact even in terms of the system there is a parallel Shariah Court system in Pakistan.

This was extensively discussed when proposed - the Nizam-e-Adl offered no major divergence from the existing Pakistani system because Shariah Courts already exist in mainstream Pakistan.

The State telengana a split based on Corrupt politics and Economic disparity between two geographic regions of fundamentally the same people the same as a demand ofr a province for Minority group

Obviously the people demanding a separate state do not see themselves as 'the same people' otherwise what would the point of having a separate province be, and that applies to all the Indian states created after 1947.

The 'difference' can be faith based, ethnicity based, culture based, tribe based or what have you, but it is about 'differences' and the bottom line is always better governance as a separate entity.

At the end of the day it is about one set of people believing that their affairs can be governed better if they exist as a separate administrative entity.

The logistics on the ground is not my concern
What was it Jinha once said.

Quote:
You worry about India, let us worry about Pakistan
So i repeat my self

The argument put forward(their case) by the Christian groups, is fundamentally the same as that made for Pakistan.
But on a smaller scale.

Just the argument, Not the whole show.

How can you ignore the logistics on the ground? Without contiguous territory that might have a Christian majority the idea of a 'Christian province' is a nonsensical demand.

I fail to see what relevance Jinnah's quote has here other than to imply that Indians have no business commenting on Pakistan's internal affairs.

The argument made by some Christians (not all or even a majority necessarily) is not the same as Pakistan since we don't even know if there is a region that is Christian majority on whose behalf they are making the demand.

The ML and its allies won significant chunks of the Muslim vote across British India, and won the right to represent the interests of those Muslims and campaigned on that platform. At the very least what would be required is that the Christian leaders that are arguing for a separate Christian province win in the constituencies that might have a Christian majority and therefore illustrate the viability of their demand and the local support for it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am opening a new thread to discuss this in the Bangladesh defense section

There are plenty of existing threads on the issue - read through them and continue the conversation there.

 

[gogbot]

Different system more than laws, since Pakistan's laws cannot be contrary to Islam in any case, and in fact even in terms of the system there is a parallel Shariah Court system in Pakistan.

This was extensively discussed when proposed - the Nizam-e-Adl offered no major divergence from the existing Pakistani system because Shariah Courts already exist in mainstream Pakistan.

I do remember there was a wide spread concern that the SWAT deal was breaching the constitutional laws.

You cannot have two different interpretations of the law running concurrently And say its the same thing
They had a system with differences when compared to the rest of Pakistan.

Meaning Pak is open to different systems in different Areas

Obviously the people demanding a separate state do not see themselves as 'the same people' otherwise what would the point of having a separate province be, and that applies to all the Indian states created after 1947.

The 'difference' can be faith based, ethnicity based, culture based, tribe based or what have you, but it is about 'differences' and the bottom line is always better governance as a separate entity.

They see them selves as Indian. and they see them selves as the same people. Your muddling facts here.
The people for telengana district feel their Constituency is not being best represented in the Andra state. Having a operate governing body for them would Men more develop for them.

They want More development in telengana and feel a separate state is the only way to achieve it.

There is no "difference of people" being the driving point for telengana it is a pure political and Econmic Decision to make

BBC News - India to create new southern state of Telengana

Campaigners say Telangana's economic development has been neglected in favour of the richer and more powerful Andhra region - and that a new state is the only solution.

Which is a lie but that's the reason they want to do it.

In Pakistan You have religious group demand a a separate province on religious grounds. How is that the same

At the end of the day it is about one set of people believing that their affairs can be governed better if they exist as a separate administrative entity.

You are generalizing to much. and making assumptions
According to you Karachi should govern itself
Lahore govern it self
Islamabad should govern itself

That is a fool hardy argument. Why cant every person govern himself. Why not every household.

And what makes one set of people on what grounds are we splitting up people.

Everyone born on this longitude with me.

In Indian and US states are not made on religious standing. and people from different states obviously see themselves as Texan, Gujarati, Keralan, New yorker. Does that mean they are different sets of people.

In Pakistan you have one specific section of the community The Christian minority asking for a Christan Province. There is No comparison with Telengana(which is an Economic and political difference). ( If Punjab was split in two for better management north Punjab and South punjab does that mean they become different type of people)

How can you ignore the logistics on the ground? Without contiguous territory that might have a Christian majority the idea of a 'Christian province' is a nonsensical demand.

I fail to see what relevance Jinnah's quote has here other than to imply that Indians have no business commenting on Pakistan's internal affairs.

Jinnha didn't care about the Logistical problem of having a geographically split country. In essence he was ignoring the logistics so long as what he saw as Minority Muslims rights were prtected in Pakistan.

It was consider Nonsensical to demand east and west Pakistan. But it turned out to be a good ideas right. I mean logistically it was very complicated but Everyone in Pakistan Must agree it was good idea

Christians can say the same. As long as Christian rights are protected in an Independent province They can govern it, without overdue federal interference. And remain loyal to Pakistan

The argument made by some Christians (not all or even a majority necessarily) is not the same as Pakistan since we don't even know if there is a region that is Christian majority on whose behalf they are making the demand.

Then conduct a vote if it stands that The Christian s want a separate province. to give it to them their province
Should get their province as symbolically saying no to them is hypocrisy

Its the same argument, different Religion our interests are not served in a Muslim majority districts so a new district for christian will ensure
our interest in Pakistan are secure.

Same argument made for Pakistan it should apply here as well

The ML and its allies won significant chunks of the Muslim vote across British India, and won the right to represent the interests of those Muslims and campaigned on that platform. At the very least what would be required is that the Christian leaders that are arguing for a separate Christian province win in the constituencies that might have a Christian majority and therefore illustrate the viability of their demand and the local support for it.

My point exactly The Christians have the same right for a separate province as Pakistan has for existing.

If they get the vote you cant say no

 

[ice_man]

@gogbot

the naxals want a separate autonomous province in the north! indian government discards their demand! the muslims in indian held kashmir have issues & so do the pandits & hindus in kashmir yet india doesn't even consider dividing them!

in gujrat men like modi & babu bajrangi burn rape kill yet they are free & no muslim province has been carved out of gujrat! so my fellow indian you should try & refrain from pointing fingers at pakistan!


as for a voting right given to the christians to choose their province well you be the "big brother" lead by example carry out voting in naxal led areas & in muslim parts of gujrat & kashmir & so on & so forth!

 

[Captain03]

there won't be a christian province in pakistan
christian colonies are throughout pakistan which means a province for them is unlikely

 

[RobbieS]

@gogbot

the naxals want a separate autonomous province in the north! indian government discards their demand! the muslims in indian held kashmir have issues & so do the pandits & hindus in kashmir yet india doesn't even consider dividing them!

Well you should really read more. Naxals are not active in the north. Their areas of influence is mainly restricted to jungles in South-eastern and central India.

With regards to their ideology, they do not demand a separate state. Their concerns are mainly economic and right to land usage than anything else.